ease : 


at 
ad 


7 . ett 
os. Pe F ‘ : - Pyo 


Petersen ite 


a 


oe 
= 


4 


a 


Ay ot®; 
ot 
— 


_—— 


Ae: 


a 


De Rey 


Se 
HH 
renee 
iy sh 


Shetecg 
SOO Oe oe 
fotyres 
we 
+ r 
ey as 
“en Sign ee Ae 


ee See 
a ce ee 
SRR, ea a ae a ee 


Ns 


eo 


€w tla 
MS Ppady 
af ene 


>, 
re 


oF & 


“Sie : 
> ai Tea acre _ : a —— = 4 . re in mw EI 
a : + 


mae = / on2 - yor > ¥ - : - > 5 *, wrest 
I a GN cal ee ae (eS ee B. ~ ee Ne Sp CLF Sige Pgs ; = z xe paras eer 


oil Re 
oe eh ees an agi > oe wales 


LAN RET PE IE EE LTT 


BS RA ee 


OF THE 
a 


Theological Seminary. 
PRINCETON, N. J. 


- 


— 
18 i 5 


the faith 


Ps 


wv 
Strivings for the Faith: 


A Series of Lectures, 


DELIVERED IN THE NEW HALL OF SCIENCE, OLD STREET, 
CITY ROAD, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE 


7 


Vas 
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY. 


eb Pork: 
1s fF 1D aay RANDOLPH AND COw 
BROADWAY. 


MDCCCLXXV. 


ite Rea GE 


pat nt AEN ts 


THE following Lectures were delivered in the same 
Hall where the lectures contained in the volume en- 
titled “Popular Objections to Revealed: Truth” were 
delivered last year. They are intended similarly to com- 
bat some of the objections, or to meet some of the diffi- 
culties that are raised at the present day in reference to 
Christianity, dealing more particularly with some of the 
points insisted upon by the ‘“ Secularists.” 

The Committee trust that these “Strivings for the 
Faith” may prove useful both to many who may them- 
selves be feeling the force of the objections referred to, 
and to many who may be seeking for further confirma. 
tion of that faith which already they hold. 

Whilst these lectures were delivered at the request 
and under the auspices of the Christian Evidence 
Society, the Committee wish it to be understood that 
each author is responsible for the statements and argu- 
ments of his own lecture; no revision of the lectures 
having been in any way made by the Committee. 


2, DUKE STREET, ADELPHI, LONDON, W.C. 
August, 1874. 


i 


- 


ae) 
% 


EG 
frais 650) 


ie. Fi 
ct 


ahs 


ae 
¢, 


: Eee. 
2 fay ‘we 


kad & 
pelt 


i tn 


ate: 


CON GE NAGS. 


LECTURE I. 


DIFFICULTIES ON THE SIDE OF UNBELIEF IN ACCOUNTING 
FOR HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY. 
fi 


ayfire 


REV. G.°F.: MACLEAR, ’D.D,, 


Head Master of King's College School, and late Assistant Preacher at 
the Lemple Church. 


I. Limitation of subject. 


II. Remarkable cessation of the old universal custom of 
sacrifice. 


III, The sense of sin, the basis of the idea of sacrifice, 
still remains, and has become intensified. 


IV. Although sacrifices have ceased, sacrificial terms are 
associated with the remarkable rite of the Lord’s 
Supper, which professes to commemorate the death 
of its Institutor. 

V. Sketch of the Life of Christ, and of the Institution of 
the Lord’s Supper. 

VI. The universal adoption of this rite; the simplicity 
of the narrative of its origin; the difficulty of ac- 
counting forits continued observance, if nothing were 
implied, beyond the death of its Founder. 


VII. The historical fact of the Resurrection alone an ade- 
quate ground for celebrating this rite. 


v1 Contents. 


VIII. Difficulties to be met, supposing the Resurrection not 
tobetrue. . : . ° . ° 


LECTURE II. 


PAGE 


THE VARIATIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN THEIR RELATION 


TO THE EVIDENCES AND TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. 


J THE 
REV: T. R. BIRKS, M.A., CAmB., 


Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, and 


Honorary Canon of Ely Cathedral. 


I. Common characteristics of the Gospels, and marks of 
their unity in respect. of their brevity—their silence— 
their simplicity—their proportion—their selection of 
minor incidents—their common object in regard of 
proving the Messiahship of Jesus. 


II. Consideration of five possible modes of variation in the 
testimony of witnesses, Under which are we to class the 
variations of the Gospels ?—Are the alleged contradic- 
tions contained in them apparent or real ? 


III. Examination of some of the variations in the four Gospels: 
(i.) Their mutual relation as to sameness and diversity ; 
(ii.) The historical unity and special adaptation of each 
Gospel ; (iii.) The moral and spiritual character of the 
Gospels ; (iv.) The genealogies ; (v.) The accounts of 
our Lord’s infancy; (vi.) The main scene and locality 
of our Lord’s public ministry. 


IV. Conclusion.—The seeming divergences in the Gospels con- 
ceal below their surface deep evidence of real consist- 
ency and truth. Importance of patient and prayerful 
thought and labour in order to ascertain the true har- 
mony of the revelation contained in God’s Word ; 


37 


Il. 


Ill. 


IV. 


Contents. 


LECTURE) fi. 


THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 


fo 


BY 
B. HARRIS COWPER, Esa. 


Unfair treatment of Apocryphal Gospels by attempting 
i.) to exalt them to the level of the Canonical Gospels ; 
(ii.) to lower the true Gospels to the level of the 
Apocryphal. 


An explanation of the origin and intention of the Apocry- 
phal Gospels. Some of the characteristics of them— 
distinguished from the genuine Gospels. 


The Apocryphal Gospels not supported by ecclesiastical 
authority. Examination of traditions referring to the 
formation of the canon, and of unreliable statements on 
the subject made by some infidel writers. 

Testimonies of ancient writers as to the existence of cer- 
tain apocryphal books, and a brief account of the six 
false Gospels now extant. 


. Conclusion.—The Apocryphal Gospels (i.) not so ancient 


as the four canonical Gospels ; (ii.) not received as of 
equal authority with them (except by certain sects) 5 
(iii.) not genuine productions of the apostolic age or 
of apostolic men. The Apocryphal Gospels distin- 
guished from the canonical in regard of their general 
character and literary style 


AppENDIX.—An outline of the Apocryphal Gospels of 


Matthew and of Nicodemus ; ° : A 


é 


Vil 


PAGE 


73 


102 


Vill Contents. 


LECTURE IV. 


THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE EARLY EPISTLES OF 
ST. PAUL VIEWED AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. 


BY THE 
REV. PETER*LORIMER, D.D., 
Professor of Theology in the English Presbyterian College, Londo. 


The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, 
Galatians, and Romans, allowed by all eminent scholars 
to be genuine. To be examined now simply as historical 
documents (as we might examine the letters of Cicero, etc). 

Their evidential value (i.) as to the outlines of the life of 
Christ ; 

(ii.) As to the personal history of St. Paul, especially 
with reference (a) to the independent origin of his. 
preaching—vo¢ derived from Greek and Oriental sources ;, 
(4) to the relation between himself and St. Peter and the 
other Apostles ; (c) to his alleged mythological develop- 
ment of the teaching of Christ. 

{iii.) As to the supernatural element in the earliest propaga- 
tion of Christianity. Important to observe that these 
Epistles give the testimony both of St. Paul and of those 
to whom he writes as to facts of which both he and they 
were witnesses. 

1. Testimony to the new character and life which had 

sprung up under St. Paul’s teaching. 

2. Testimony to the supernatural origin of the Gospel, as: 

proved by its moral and religious influence. 

3. Testimony to the Divine presence and power which ac- 
companied St. Paul’s preaching of the Gospel, as: 
manifested by his miracles, the ‘“‘signs of an 
Apostle.” 

4. Testimony to the same, as manife:’ed by the ‘spiritual 
gifts” of the Church. 


——e_ 


Contents. 


Concluding remarks : 

(i.) The Church of Christ was planted before any part of the 
New Testament was written :—and hence the existence 
of the Church is not really endangered by any attacks 
made upon the writings of the New Testament. 

(ii.) These early Epistles of St. Paul are genuine historical 
documents, and worthy of credit, quite apart from 
the question of their inspiration. 

(iii.) Facts, such as those concerning the early Church, men- 
tioned in the Lecture, are evidence of the existence 
of God, and of His providential government; they 
cannot be explained or accounted for satisfactorily by 
any naturalistic solution. ; ‘ ; 


LECTURE V._ 


ix 


PAGE 


10Q 


LORD LYTTLETON ON THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL. 


4 
BY TH 


REV. JOHN GRITTON. 


Variety of evidence required for the conviction of various 
classes of minds, —illustrated by variety of effect produced 
by scientific or historical difficulties, etc., on those who 
may have been induced by the evidence of prophecy, or 

' of miracles, or of the character of Christ, to accept the 
Bible as containing a Divine Revelation. 

Testimony to the Divine origin of Christianity derived from 
the life and writings of Lord Lyttleton, particularly from 
his treatise on St. Paul’s conversion. 

The facts which Lord Lyttleton postulates acknowledged to 
be true, even by unbelieving critics. 

The testimony to St. Paul’s miraculous call to the Apostle- 
ship, as contained in his own speeches before Festus and 
King Agrippa, and before the Jews in Jerusalem ; in St. 
Luke’s record in the Acts ; and in the confessedly genuine 
writings of St. Paul. 


x Contents. 


PAGE 
‘Three suppositions may possibly be made to account for the 


facts of the case, without allowing the miraculous element : 


I. That St. Paul said what he knew to be false, with an 
intent to deceive. Difficulties of this supposition : 
(i.) What motive could St. Paul have for thus acting ? 
Possible motives, as the desire of wealth, fame, or 
power, or the desire to gratify some passion, examined, 
and shown to be baseless. (ii.) He could have had no 
reasonable prospect of success in carrying out his im- 
posture (a) in relation to the other Apostles; (4) in 
preaching among the Gentiles, and contending (1) with 
the policy of the magistrates ; (2) with the interests of 
the priests; (3) with the prejudices of the people ; 
(4) with the wisdom of the philosophers. 


II. That he was an enthusiast, imposed upon by the 
force of an overheated imagination. But he exhibits 
none of the marks of an enthusiast, and it is even more 
difficult on this supposition than on the previous one to 

- account for his life and works. . 


III. That he was deceived by the fraud of others. This 
supposition shown to be impossible and absurd. 
Hence we must fall back on the supposition that St. 

Paul does give an authentic account of his conversion, 
and we must conclude, therefore, that Christianity is 
a Divine Revelation . ; e : Sha #5 


Tw 


Contents. xi 


LECTURE VI. 


ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN THE MORAL TEACHING OF 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY THE 
REV. C, A. ROW, M.A,, 
Prebendary of St. Paul's, 
Author of ‘‘The Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration,” ‘' The 


Fesus of the Evangelists,” ‘‘ The Moral Teaching of the New 
Testament,” etc. 


Subject limited to examination of certain objections made by 
Mr. F. W. Newman and Mr, J. S. Mill. Opposition 
between Mr. Newman and Mr, Mill, as to whether princi- 
ples contrary to truth and right preponderate in the 
teaching of the New Testament. Both agree that its 
teaching is defective. 

A “system of moral teaching ” must set forth general Arinciples, 
but cannot contain specific Jrecepts applicable to every 
detail of duty. Superiority of the New Testament in this 
point over other professed systems of morals. . 

Leading principles of Christian morality,—love to God, love 
to our neighbour, self-sacrifice (this last entirely over- 
looked both by Mr. Newman and Mr. Mill); also the 
principles of truth, honour, justice, and the morally beau- 
tiful, etc., are appealed to. 

Some special objections made by Mr. Newman, stated and 
examined ; (i.) That their sense of the nearness of the future 
world, as insisted upon by the writers of the New Testament, 
must have rendered them inadequate moral teachers ; (ii. ) 
That the New Testament is deficient in its teaching as to 
our political relations ; (jiii.) That it contains no precept 
regulating the practice of war; (iv.) Nor any precept 
directly commanding the abolition of slavery; (v.) That 
it is deficient in not enunciating the rights of man. 

Objections made by Mr, Mill considered: (i.) That in 


xii Contents. 


PAGE 
Christian ethics the duty of patriotism is not sufficiently 


esteemed or set forth; (ii.) That all recognition of the 
idea of public duty in modern times is derived from Greek 
and Roman sources, not from Christian ones; (iil.) That 
in the morality of private life all sense of personal dignity, 
honour, etc., is derived from the human and not from the 
religious part of our education. 

Objections considered in reference to the alleged contradiction 
between the New Testament and the teachings of Political 
Economy :— 

(i.) The principles of Political Economy inadequate to 
grapple with many difficulties which can only be dealt 
with by the energy that is supplied by the principles of 
Christian morality. 

(ii.) The precepts of Christ of all intended to be under- 
stood literally. 

(iii.) Christian teaching in relation to the principle of pru- 
dent saving and to the accumulation of capital. 

(iv.) Mr. Newman’s objections considered against St. Paul’s 
teaching as to the relations between masters and 
servants, parents and children, husbands and wives. 

Conclusion.—The personal influence of Christ as a moral 
and spiritual power—Quotation from Lecky’s History of 
Morals.’ . ; 4 : : ° plat f-) 


LECTURE VII. 


THE COMBINATION OF UNITY WITH PROGRESSIVENESS OF 
THOUGHT IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, 
AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR,OF DIVINE REVELATION. 
BY/ THE 
REV, J. H. TITCOMB, M.A, 
Vicar of St. Stephen's, South Lambeth, and Rural Dean of Clapham. 


The extent of time covered by the enquiry. The Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures represent the religious faith and hope 


Contents. 


of the Hebrews, from at least the time of Abraham 
to Christ. 


I. Inquiry whether there is not a unity combined with pro- 
gressiveness of thought in the Scriptures, running over 
a prodigious lapse of time, yet making up one harmo- 
nious and perfect whole. 

(i.) The Azstorical development of the traditional hope 

respecting a coming Deliverer. 

(ii.) The doctrinal development, with reference (a) to the 
Prophetic or Teaching Office of the Redeemer, (2) to 
His Kingly Office. 

II. Contrast, in respect of this ‘‘ unity with progressiveness,” 
between the religion of the Hebrews, and the religions 
of Egypt and China, and the systems of Buddhism and 
Brahminism. 


III. The only explanation of this characteristic of the He- 
brew Religion to be found in the belief that it is a result 
of Divine Revelation. 

_ {i.) Consideration of the fact itself : 

(1) It is set forth in the books of the Old Testament, 
which were certainly in existence about 200 B.c. 

(2) These books contain the remains of an actual faith 
and hope never extinguished in Israel. 

(3) This faith and hope confirmed by a succession of 
religious teachers, and set forth in a variety of 
methods. 

(ii.) Consideration of the circumstances attending this fact: 

(1) The vicissitudes in fortune of the Israelites. 

(2) The writers who developed this hope were men of 
various positions, modes of thought, etc. 

(3) Many of the facts, predicted of the coming Re- 
deemer,. of such a kind as to be at once capable 
of refutation, if not actually fulfilled. | 

(4) Harmony between the statements respecting Jesus 
of Nazareth contained in the confessedly genuine 
Epistles of St. Paul, and the anticipations regarding 
the Messiah set forth by the Old Testament writers. 


xiii 


PAGE 


XIV Contents. 


PAGE 
(2) The promised Redeemer was rejected and slain 


by His own people. 
(6) The result of His teaching was to introduce a new 
dispensation, open to Gentiles as well as to Jews. 
(c) This new dispensation was in the course of actually 
breaking up the whole Jewish nationality. 
(iii.) Three possible explanations of this fact om natural 
; grounds considered, and their unsatisfactoriness ex- 
hibited. 

(1) That the sayings of the Old Testament had no 
proper application to a coming Redeemer. 

(2) That these sayings were only the surmisings of genius, 
strangely and unexpectedly fulfilled. 

(3) That Christ and His Apostles purposely moulded 
events so as to bring about the fulfilment of the 
guesses and speculations contained in the Old 
Testament. 

_ {iv.) Christianity supplies the only key which unlocks with 
reasonableness the full a of the books of the 
Old Testament , $ ; ° e2ee 


LECTURE VIII. ° 


THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN STUART MILL. 


erg 


/ 


W. R. BROWNE, M.A.,, 
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Value of an Autobiography, especially of such a mam and 
thinker as J. S.. Mill. , 
Examination of the book with respect to Mill’s. religious 


opinions, 


eee ee eee ee ee 


a 


Pa ap ee ae ee ee 


Contents. — 


He accepted and continued throughout life to hold the reli- 


gious opinions impressed upon him by his father, reject- 
ing on @ priori grounds everything supernatural. 


Reasons why no weight is to be attached to his Scepticism. 


(1) He seems never to have thoroughly investigated the 
evidences of Christianity. (2) The result of his early 
_ training was to look upon Christianity exactly as upon any 
of the ancient religions, as something which in no way 
concerned him. (3) Disbelief in the freedom of the will 
at the bottom both of his own and of his father’s scep- 
ticism. 


Consideration of the doctrine of necessity. The freedom of 


the will shown to be necessary for the development of 
virtue and of all morality. The existence of evil shown 
to be at once possible, when the freedom of the will is 
admitted. Evil essential for the discipline and growth of 
virtue. The dignity of suffering as exhibited in the 
Christian religion. 


James and John Mill, whilst rejecting free-will, and chere- 


fore rejecting Christianity, still retained those conceptions 
of right and of duty, which zmly free-will—hence an 
argument 77 favour of Christianity. 


The philosophy of the Secularist powerless as to any moral 


influence ;—thu; contrasted with Christianity ¢ ° 


XV 


PAGE. 


259 


DIFHICULTIES: ON THE SIDE OF UNBE- 
LLEF IN ACCOUNTING FOR HISTORICAL 
CHRISTIANITY. 


iv. THE 


1m Pt Oe i MACLEAR, D.D., 


flead Master of King’s College School, and late Assistant Preacher at the 


Temple. Church, 


Hitliculties on the side of Anbelict 
Mm accounting 
for Historical Christianity, 


i 


z Wa subject on which I have to speak this 

evening relates to the “ Difficulties on the 

side of Unbelief in accounting for Historical Chris- 
tianity.” 

2. I think it will be best, in treating such a subject, to 
confine myself to one or two points, instead of surveying 
a large number, which could not be satisfactorily dealt 
with in the compass of a single lecture. 

3- I propose, therefore, to ask you to review certain 
facts of history, which, as it seems to me, remain and 
must remain absolutely inexplicable and unintelligible 
without the solution Christianity supplies, and I wish to 
inquire whether the difficulties these facts. present do 
not, except on the supposition that Christianity is true, 
involve conclusions more miraculous and unaccountable 
than anything that has ever occurred in the world. 


4 Difficulties on the side of Unbelicf 


II 

1. In a famous letter, written between A.D. 104 and 
110, by the pro-preetor Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, 
he mentions that in his province of Pontus and Bithynia 
certain strange tenets had for some years been spread 
abroad, in consequence of which the temples of the gods 
were forsaken, the sacred solemnities intermitted, and 
the sacrificial victims found very few purchasers. 

2, It has been remarked by Paley™ that no evidence 
remains, by which it can be proved that the description 
he gives is to be confined to these provinces, and was 
unknown in other parts of the Roman Empire. The 
evidence, indeed, rather points to the contrary, and the 
words of the pro-pretor are brought forward here because 
they refer to the commencement within historic. times, 
and not at a period so remote as to be lost in a fabulous 
antiquity, of one of the most striking religious revolu- 
tions which the annals of the past record. 

3. How singular this revolution is we can, perhaps, 
estimate most effectively by supposing a Jew of the days 
of Solomon or Herod, or a Gentile of the days of Pericles 
or Augustus, to visit one of the churches of modern 
Christendom. Amongst many other things which would 
strike him, none, it may be believed, would do so with 
greater force than the absence of that ancient sacrificial 
ritual, with which he had been familiar from earliest 


* Evidences, Part 11. chap. ix. It is to be remembered that his 
province included several important towns—Neoczsareia, Chalcedon, 
Nicomedeia, Amisus, Trapezus, and the colonies of Heracleia and 


Sinope. See Merivale’s History of the Romans under the Em- 
perors, Will. 144. 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. 5 


childhood, and without which he could not conceive the — 
possibility of any religious worship at all. 

4. To us the phenomenon presents nothing either 
difficult or singular. Our difficulty rather is even to 
realise the celebration of those sacrifices, which once 
obtained almost universally throughout the world, and 
which were once regarded as the true modes of approach- 
ing the Supreme Being, under whatever form He was 
conceived, and with whatever attributes He was clothed. 

5. The traveller, it is true, in lands still heathen, will 
discern traces of this once universal ritual, but in all 
countries calling themselves Christian, that is to say 
amongst the most enlightened and cultivated nations of 
the present day, it has not only ceased, but, in spite of 
all the violent reactions of nearly two thousand years, 
has never, as a form of national worship, been perma- 
nently restored. 

6. But it will be well perhaps to endeavour to realise 
more clearly what we say has disappeared. 

7. A form, then, of religious worship has passed 
away, which the oldest Book in the world represents as 
prevailing at the very infancy of the human race,* and 
which once gave employment to thousands and tens of 
thousands of a particular caste in the Mosaic Tabernacle, 
in the costlier and more enduring structures of Solomon 
and ‘Herod, in the temples of classic Greece and imperial 
Rome. : 

8. A form of religious worship has passed away, which 
was once equally accepted by the ‘Father of the 


* Gen. iv. 43 viii. 203 xii. 7,8: Jobi. 5; xiii, 8 


6 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


faithful,” by the sweet Psalmist of Israel, by the Grecian 
statesman, and the Roman magistrate ; which was once 
inextricably entwined with all the more solemn epochs of 
man’s domestic life—birth, and marriage, and death ; 
with all the most momentous epochs in his national and 
political life—the foundation of cities, the ratification of 
treaties, the declaration of war, the celebration of solemn 
triumphs; with all the most powerful emotions of his 
personal and religious life—his hopes and fears, his joys 
and sorrows, his hours of despondency, his consciousness 
of guilt, his yearning for restoration to the Divine favour. 

9. A form of religious worship has passed away, to 
which men once resorted almost instinctively, whether 
they desired to acknowledge the power and supremacy 
of the Deity they adored, to present him with some 
pledge of homage and subjection, to return thanks for 
gifts received or protection afforded, to deprecate anger, 
or to implore reconciliation, and without the intervention 
of which, in some form or other, it is hardly too much to 
say that once no morning dawned, no evening closed, no 
public entertainment was celebrated, no private meal was 
eaten, no harvest was housed, no vintage was gathered 
in, no sin was expiated, and no ceremonial impurity was 
removed. 

ro. In other matters, nations and tribes have differed 
as widely as it is possible to conceive. In this habit of 
sacrifice they have been as one. And yet, universal as it 
once was, it is now unknown to the civilised world. 
This is a fact, brought home to us by our daily expe- 
rience. ‘The solemn procession of sacrificial victims, the 
slaughtering of them before the altar, the sprinkling of 


wn accounting for Listorical Christianity. ” 


their blood upon the offerer, the sacrificial feast that 
followed—these things are with us entirely matters of the 
past, and whether we read of them in Jewish history, or the 
poems of Homer, or the narrative of Livy, we experience 
the utmost difficulty in realizing to ourselves that they 
ever obtained amongst men. 

11. Now it does not require a very extended acquaint- 
ance with human nature to know that of all habits, ideas, 
and associations, none retain their ascendancy more 
pertinaciously over man than those which concern him 
as a religious being.* 

12. And yet, in reference to one religious custom, 
though the most ancient and the most universal of all, 
for the sake of which, indeed, priests, altars, and temples 
originally came into being,; we have only to look around 
us to be confronted with a spectacle of a change so 
complete and overmastering that it would fill us with 
astonishment if we were not accustomed to it from day 
to day. © 


(iby 


1. I have already observed that this remarkable revo- 
lution of thought and feeling may be traced back to a 
period not lost in a hazy antiquity, but to one strictly 
within the domain of history, to a period which had its 
records, its archives, and its monuments. Important as 
this fact will be found to be hereafter, I propose first to 
notice another feature of this religious revolution, which 
is no less striking and no less deserving of attention. 


* This is fully acknowledged by Renan, Les Ajpédtres, chap. xvii. 
ft Dollinger’s Gentile and Few, i. 225. 


8 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


2. Without entering upon the question of the origin of : 
the ancient sacrifices, it may be asserted without fear of 
contradiction that they were to a considerable extent 
based upon a sense, more or less real, of personal short- 
coming ; that they were gifts, whereby man sought to 
make good his imperfect consecration of himself to his 
Maker ; that they represented the conviction that some- 
thing over and above mere repentance was needed to 
expiate the consequences of guilt.* 

3. Now to the practice of sacrifice the great exception 
is found, as is well known, in the system of Buddhism. 
But along with sacrifice Buddhism rejects the notion that 
lay at the root of it, namely, that past sin presents any 
objective obstacle to man’s reconciliation with God.+ 
If, then, among the nations of Christendom, together 
with the cessation of sacrifice there had passed away also 
man’s conviction of personal shortcoming, there would 
be a consistency in the revolution, and the disappearance of 
the conviction would account in a great measure for the 
disappearance of the sacrifical observaaice. 

4. But is this the case? Has the conviction of per- 
sonal shortcoming vanished from the midst of Christen- 
dom like the phantom of a troubled dream? So far is 
this from being the fact, that it may be safely said there 
has never been a time when the conviction of sin has 
been more and more intensified amongst the most 
cultivated nations than during the last eighteen hundred 
years. 


* Butler's Analogy, Part 1. chap. v. 


t+ Kreuger, Symdolik, i. 2, 5; Hardwick's Christ and other 
Masters, ii. 60; Macdonnell’s Donnellan Lectures, p. 90. 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. 9 


5. In saying this I do not seek to depreciate for a 
moment the feeling upon this momentous subject which 
undoubtedly existed in the ancient world. I would 
acknowledge freely the sense of inward contradiction, and 
of the awful power of conscience expressed by many of 
the wisest of the heathen. I would give their full force 
to all those proverbs in ancient writers which represent 
sin as disharmony, as spiritual bondage, as the trans- 
gression of limits prescribed by Virtue, as inflicting 
wounds upon the soul, as entailing terrible consequences 
in the world to come. 

6. But no one will deny that all this has been infinitely 
deepened and intensified. The very word “Sin” has 
acquired a meaning such as it never bore in the mouth 
of the greatest of the moral teachers of Greece and 
Rome. A mournful catalogue of terms based on a great 
variety of images has been employed in writings of in- 
spired authority to set forth its heinousness and disastrous 
effects. A code of morality has been promulgated, 
which is stricter than the strictest requirements of the 
Mosaic Law, and brings out, as was never done before, 
the infinite distance between the guilt-laden sinner and 
the infinitely holy Creator. Words have been reverbe- 
rating through the last eighteen centuries—passing into 
laws, into proverbs, into doctrines, but never passing 
away—demanding the obedience of the heart and soul, 
as well as of the hand and tongue. 3 

7. These words have found a lodgement in the breasts 
of men like no other words before or since. They have 
exercised and are exercising still a momentous influence. 
Moreover, on the authority of the voice that uttered 


10 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


them, life has been invested with a more real and myste- 
rious import than ever was associated with it in the 
ancient world. Not only is it the portal of another life, 
but beyond it lies an awful tribunal before which all 
must stand. It is the Judgment Seat of no shadowy 
/Eacus or Rhadamanthus, but of One who ¢rieth the 
very hearts and reins,* and who will judge every man 
according to the deeds done in the body.t 

8. I do not here assume that these convictions have 
exercised anything like an adequate effect on the lives 
and actions of men, but I say they have exerted an 
effect such as never was known before the modern era, 
and they have gone far to foster a national conscience, 
and to deepen the sense of individual responsibility. 
There may be much in modern society to startle and 
alarm any who will look below the surface. ‘There may 
be times when the philanthropist is tempted to doubt 
the reality of any progress at all, and the moralist to 
sigh almost in despair over the grossest violations of 
justice and honesty. But, taken as a whole, there never 
was a period when sin was less generally regarded with 
- indifference, or the consciousness of it less deemed an 
infirmity and an illusion. 

g. It will not be disputed that man is now mainly 
what he has been from the beginning. He is stilla 
being subject to all the vicissitudes of earthly existence ; 
he still “‘ cometh up and is cut down like a flower;” he 
still ‘“‘has but a short time to live and is full of misery ;”¢ 


* Ps. vil. 9. T 1 Cor. iv. 53: 2.Cor.v.10: 
t ‘“* We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, 
and the plain duty of each and all of us is to trv and make the 


in accounting for Listorical Christianity. IL 


he still acknowledges the inability of the things of time 
and sense entirely to satisfy his longings ; he still confesses 
by the voice of his greatest poets the nothingness of his 
highest glory,* and he has often testified by the terrible 
earnestness of his penances and self-torturesthat the side of 
his life most full of suffering is the religious side, and that, 
great as he may be, he yet contains within him some 
profound source of misery. 

ro. And yet, though the conviction of personal short- 
coming has been thus deepened and intensified, the 
ancient sacrificial ritual has never succeeded in regaining 
its hold. Though man has never constructed for himself 
a religion of despair, yet during the last eighteen hundred 
years he has never sought relief in a system which 
was once almost universally recognised as the proper 
means for seeking reconciliation with God. Though he 
still is conscious that he is not as he ought to be, yet this 
sense of demerit has not restored the sin and trespass- 


little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable, and somewhat 
less ignorant, than it was before he entered it.”—Prof. Huxiey. 

* “Read Johnson’s Vanity of Human Wishes ; all the examples 
and mode of giving them sublime. ’Tis a grand poem, and so 
true.”—Byron’s Diary, 1821. ‘‘If all that the old poets have 
sung, in isolated passages, of the miseries of existence ; if all those 
sad songs of a truly terrible view of the world which the notion of a 
blind fate has scattered amidst the legends and histories of various 
nations in deeply significant tragedies were collected into one 
picture, and the transitory and poetic fancy exchanged for true and 
lasting earnestness, the peculiarity of the Indian view of life would 
be best comprehended.”—Fr. Schlegel, Ueber der Sprache und 
Weisheit der Inder, quoted in Luthardt, 338 n. 

t+ Ackermann’s Christian Element in Plato, pp. 203—207. 

t Pascal, Pensées, ii. 88, 104. 


12 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


offerings of the Jew, or brought back those propitiatory 
sacrifices of the Gentile, which were once, especially in 
seasons of national or domestic calamity, multiplied with 
such frightful prodigality, and prompted man to surrender 
even the fruit of his body for the sin of his sout. 

11. Here, then, we are confronted with another and 
very singular feature of the religious revolution we are 
considering. Sacrifices, we know, formed a part uni- 
versally of ancient worship. ‘The sense of Sin was then 
confessedly weak. How is it, now that it has been so 
strengthened and developed, that the old ritual has 
passed away? It will scarcely be pretended that it con- 
cerned the mere surface of man’s life. If there be any 
emotions, deep, serious, and permanent, in the human 
breast, they are those which prompted these modes of 
bridging over the gulf between the creature and _ his 
Creator. . What has caused this surprising change of 
thought and feeling? To say that the sentiment of man- 
kind was gradually alienated from and that imperial 
decrees* forbade the ancient rites only removes the 
difficulty a single step backwards. The question still 
remains, whence came the feeling that inspired the legis- 
lation, and how comes it to pass that legislation, in 
religious matters notoriously weak and incompetent, has 
succeeded in thus effectually eradicating a system once 
So universal ? 

TVs 
. May we conclude, then, that with the ancient 
sadhiniteh ritual the ancient sacrificial phraseology has 


* Like those of Theodosius, a.p. 381; Gibbon, iii. 413, and 
notcs. 


in accouniing for Historical Christianity. 13 


disappeared also? Are such expressions as “victim” 
and “offering,” “oblation” and “satisfaction,” “ pro- 
pitiation” and “ atonement” utterly unknown? Do we 
trace them only as relics of a vanished world of thought 
in the pages of the Pentateuch or the writings of Livy ? 

2. What we might naturally have expected, what on 
every ground of probability we had almost a right to 
expect, has not taken piace. Sacrifices have passed away, 
sacrificial terms remain, and they not only remain, but 
they have found a centre, round which they group them- 
selves ; they have found a fact of history, to which they 
have been transferred. | 

3. There exists at this day in every part of Europe, 
and in various parts of Asia, Africa, and America, one 
single Rite, that of the Lord’s Supper, which alone ap- 
proximates to the complex system that has passed away: 

4. It has been celebrated for eighteen hundred years. 
However it may have come, whencesoever it may have 
come, here it is. “It has lasted through a great many 
storms and revolutions. ‘The Roman Empire has passed 
away ; modern European society has risen out of its 
ruins. Political systems have been established and over- 
thrown. * Even the physical world has undergone mighty 
alterations, and our conception of its laws is altogether 
changed.”* But this Rite still survives. Manners, 
habits, modes of thought, theories, opinions, philosophies, 
have changed. This Rite has outlived them all. 

5. But does this mode, in which the Rite is celebrated, 
recall also the old sacrificial habit? Would it in any 


* Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ, ii. 5. 


14 Difficulties on the side of Unbelef 


degree remind a Greek of the days of Pericles, or a 
Roman of the time of Augustus, of the ancient ritual ? 
‘The ceremonial to which they had been accustomed from 
their earliest years was extremely complex. The victim, 
adorned with garlands, was led up to the altar; meal and 
salt were mixed and crumbled over its head; a libation 
of wine was poured out ; the victim was slain ; its blood 
was poured on and about the altar; certain portions were 
burnt with wine, meal, and incense, and the rest of the 
flesh was distributed to the people. 

6. Of all this how much survives in this Rite? What 
are the outward and visible signs presented during its 
celebration to the eyes of the worshippers? Suppose the 
pro-pretor of Bithynia had been present at one of those 
meetings of the early Christians which he describes in his 
letter to the Emperor Trajan, and about which he was so 
anxious, what tokens of any sacrificial ritual would he 
have beheld? In some upper room, perhaps, lit up with 
the light of many torches, or the first rays of the rising 
sun,* he would have seen couches laid and the walls 
hung, after the manner of the East,t for a harmless 
banquet.{ To this meal the rich would have contributed 
of their abundance and the poor of their poverty, and all 
would be joining in it with singleness of heart. Then, 
after the offering of prayer and the reading of holy writings 
and exhortation to a godly life, he would have seen 
Bread brought in§ and placed before some elder amongst 
the company, and likewise a cup of Wine. He would 


* “Ante lucem,” Plin. J, xevi. + Stanley on 1 Cor. xi. vol. 1. 
Pri 
$ Plin. Z/, xcvi. § Comp. Justin. 4Zo/, cap. Ixv. 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. 15 


have seen the Bread solemnly blessed, broken, and eaten. 
He would have seen the Wine solemnly blessed, poured 
out, and drunk by those assembled. 

7. Now, it is true that in ancient times, though the 
victim itself was the efficacious element of sacrifice, it 
was offered with and by means of bread and wine, and 
that mealtime and sacrifice were so essentially connected 
together that ‘“‘even the modes of expressing the two acts 
were frequently interchanged.”* 

8. But what thoughts would have instantly risen in the 
mind of the pro-pretor? What question would he most 
certainly have put? Would he not have asked, “If this 
is a solemn meal, a religious feast, when and where was 
the sacrificial victim offered? The victims for our 
sacrifices find few purchasers, the temples are abandoned, 
the sacred rites are neglected; where is He whom ye 
worship,} and what is the sacrifice ye are celebrating ?”’ 

9. To such a question, what would have been the reply 
of any Christian in his province? Would he not have 
said, ‘‘ This Meal, whereof we partake, is a sacred Feast, 
instituted by Him, from whom we are called Christians. 
He commanded Bread to be eaten, and Wine to be drunk 
by us in memory of His Death, which He underwent 
upon the Cross”? 

ro. A Christian of Bithynia would undoubtedly have 


* For the religious importance attached by Jews to the actions of 
breaking bread and pouring out wine, even at a common meal, see 
Lightfoot’s Zemple Service ; Godwyn’s Moses and Aaron, pp. 89, 903 
The Book of Fewish Ceremonies, by Gamaliel Ben Pedahzur, pp. 51 
—56 ; Cudworth’s Zrue Notion, chap. i. 

+ **Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere,” Plin. Z/. xcvi. 


16. ; Difficulties on the side of Unbeltef 


gone on to say more upon the subject to his inquirer.* 
But the answer, even as far as it goes, brings out a very 
remarkable feature in reference to this Rite. It claims 
to rest not upon any conception or theory, but upon az 
objective, historical fact, and this fact is the death of tts 
Lnstitutor. 

11. Now this is deserving ofnote. ‘The disappearance 
of an ancient, time-hallowed mode of religious worship is 
a fact of history. ‘The celebration of this Rite is a fact 
of history, the rise and origin of which can be traced back 
to a certain, definite period, of whith we know a great deal. 

12. We are relegated, then, for an explanation of the 
origin of this unprecedented Rite, not to a land of hazy 
theories or shadowy mythology, but to one where we can 
plant our footsteps on solid ground. 

13. This Rite claims to rest within historic times on 
the death of a Person. Either this death took place, or 
it didnot. If it did, there must have been circumstances 
_ connected with it utterly unlike any othet that has taken 
place in history, if we are to account for its commemora- 
tion ever since by means of the reception of Bread and 
Wine, to which Jew and Gentile alike attached. a solemn 
and even a religious importance. 


Vi 


1. Who, then, instituted this Rite? When did He 
institute it, and under what circumstances? The answer 
to these enquiries is not a matter of dispute. All the 
Churches that have received the Symbol, Latin or Greek, 


* The question of a higher or lower view of the Eucharist is not 


material to the argument. The question is, Whad is the meaning of 
the Rite at ali? 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. 17 


Catholic or Protestant, whatever other view they may 
take of it, agree in referring it to one and the same Person, 
and to one and the same time. 

2. The Institutor—such is the testimony of Christian 
writers, and it is strengthened by every incidental notice 
of the facts which occurs in profane authors—appeared 
about eighteen centuries and a half ago, during the reigns 
of the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius, in Palestine, an 
obscure corner of the ancient Roman Empire. 

3. Apparently He was of the humblest origin. His 
reputed father was a carpenter of Nazareth, a town hidden 
away amidst the Galilean hills, unknown and unnamed 
in the pages of the Old Testament Scriptures. His 
mother was a Jewish maiden of Bethlehem in Judea, who 
lived at Nazareth. Here for thirty years the Institutor of 
this mysterious Rite grew up, sharing with the town its 
seclusion and obscurity, far removed alike from the stir 
and bustle of the great capitals of the Empire, and the 
disputes of the theological schools of His native land. 

4. When the thirty years of seclusion were over, He 
left His humble home and came forth as a Teacher of 
His countrymen, and after a while gathered round Him 
a small body of disciples of equally humble origin as 
Himself—peasants, publicans, fishermen of Galilee. 

5. To these His followers He endeared Himself by a 
life of self-sacrificing devotion to their highest interests. 
With them He went about amongst His countrymen. He 
visited their capital, their towns, their villages, and 
addressed Himself as a teacher to all classes, rich and 
poor, learned and unlearned.* 


* For the sake of the argument, the supernatural element involved 
in the Saviour’s miracles is not here pressed. a 


18 Diffiicuities on the side of Unbelief 


6. His teaching, it has been already noticed, has 
exercised a very remarkable influence in the world. It 
combined terrible severity against sin with infinite tender- 
ness towards sinners ; it united a marvellous simplicity 
with a claim unhesitatingly and unfalteringly urged to an 
absolutely boundless authorityt over the minds and souls 
of men. But it provoked determined opposition. Its 
denunciations of hypocrisy, pretence, and formalism, its 
assertion, never retracted or modified, of the Speaker's 
natural title to universal royalty and coequality with God, { 
arrayed against Him the most powerful classes of His 
countrymen, and they resolved to compass His death. 

4. The extant biographies§ of the Institutor of this Rite 
tell us that He was well aware of the deepening intensity 
of this opposition. He saw the tide setting in steadily 
against Him, and He never disguised from His followers 


* See above, p. 4, and Milman’s History of Christianity, i. 189. 

+ ‘‘Jesusmakes everything depend upon His person ; in fact, His 
person is His matter. When He would most emphatically assure 
or confirm, His words are, Verily, verily, I say unto you. We are 
to believe His words, not because of the truth of their matter, but 
because of the dignity of His person—and yet He was the meekest 
of men! ”—Luthardt’s Fundamental Ti vuths, p. 284; Liddon’s Bamp- 
ton Lectures, 166—179; see also the comparison in this respect 
between Christ and Socrates in Zcce Homo, pp, 94, 95- 

+ John v. 17, 18. 

§ “Into the question of their authenticity and genuineness it is not 
necessary to enter here. That the three earliest Gospels at any rate 
existed before the siege of Jerusalem, and that they had before the 
middle of the secend century acquired a sacred authority, may be 
regarded as a conclusion which has been wrung from the inevitable 
candour of reluctant adversaries.’”’—Farrar’s Witness of History to 
Christ, pp~52; 53- 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. 19 


its inevitable issue. It formed the subject of frequent 
and earnest conversation with them.* Without the 
slightest trace of misgiving, and with an unearthly calm- 
ness, He never faltered in His declaration that on His 
death depended the most momentous issues alike to His 
disciples and to the world at large. 

8. At length the hatred and opposition of the ruling 
powers reached its climax, and they were enabled, owing 
to the treachery of one of His own disciples, to ensure 
His delivery into their hands. ‘The evening before their 
designs were carried out was the Eve of the Passover, 
the great historic Festival of His countrymen. Jerusalem 
was crowded with strangers and pilgrims from every 
quarter of the world. The hills around were whitened 
with countless flocks of sheep and lambs ready for the 
morrow’s Festival. The Institutor of the Rite we are 
examining had made careful preparation} for celebrating 
this Feast with twelve of His more immediate followers, 
and on the evening in question He celebrated it with 
them according to the custom of the nation. 

9. The end, which He had foreseen, and of which He 
had so often spoken, was now close at hand. But He 
was neither perturbed, nor alarmed, nor anxious to retract 
or modify any of His boundless claims. Calmly and 
quietly, He took, as the Festal Meal proceeded, one of 
the unleavened cakes that had been placed before Him 
as Master of the Feast, and giving thanks, He brake it, 
and gave it to them, saying—“ Zuke, eat, This is My body, 


* (1) Matt. xvi. 21; Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 21, 22; (2) Matt. 
xvii. 9; Mark ix. 9; Luke ix. 44; (3) Matt. x. 33, 34. 
t Matt. xxvi. 17—19 ; Mark xiv. 12—16; Luke xxii. 7—13. 


20 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


which is given for you; ao this in remembrance of Me.” 
Afterwards He took a cup of wine, and having given thanks 
in like manner, He gave it unto them, saying—“ Drink 
ye all of this; for this Cup is My Blood of the New 
Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for 
the remission of sins; this do as oft as ye shall drink tt, 
in remembrance of Me.” 

to. Such was the institution of the Eucharist. The 
_ evening on which it was instituted deepened into night, 
but before the following morning dawned He who insti- 
tuted it was apprehended by His enemies. ‘Their malice 
did its worst; He was dragged from one tnbunal to 
another ; He was beaten, buffeted, spit upon, and at last 
He was led out to crucifixion, and He died the death of 
the malefactor and the slave. 

11. The fact of His death is recorded in each of the 
four biographies of Christ. However condensed they 
may be in other portions, they “expand into the minute 


particularity of a diary,” as they approach the foot of the _ 


Cross. The historical fact of His decease is mentioned 
by later authors as a matter of common notoriety, and it 
gave point to the opprobrious epithets applied to the 
first disciples. In an historical age, which had its 
archives, its registers, and its monuments, the fact was 
always accepted, and never disproved. 

12. Now, in the annals of the world, is there anything 
really parallel to this? “Other founders of systems or 
societies have thanked a kindly Providence for shroud- 
ing from their gaze the vicissitudes of coming time.” 
But the Institutor of this Rite, though to all outward 
appearance He stood literally alone in the world, though 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. — 21 


amongst the little band of his attached followers He had 
none on whom. He could lean, or from whom He could 
receive the slightest real sympathy or support, though in 
the immediate foreground of His future was an awful and 
humiliating death, yet was so far from deeming this any 
hindrance to His planof establishing a Universal Kingdom, © 
that He actually made provision for its commemoration 
to all future time! About to disappoint every hope 
and every anticipation of His followers, He established the 
commemoration of that disappointment in a mysterious 
Ordinance, and directed that it should be universally 
celebrated !* 


VI. 


1. Marvellous and unparalleled as this is, the fact re- 
mains that this Rite has been uninterruptedly observed. 
The anticipations of the Institutor have been fulfilled. 

2. Now it will be allowed without hesitation that there 
is nothing so rare as to find any religious system which 1s 
capable of transcending the limits of race, clime, and the 
scene of its historic origin ; a religious system which, if 
transplanted, will not quickly vanish away, which by any 


* Even Schenkel admits that ‘‘ never before had Jesus stood at so 
lofty a height as at the moment of instituting the Lord’s Supper. 
With a violent death before Him, expecting from His disciples, in 
their weakness of character, neither help nor comfort, without pros- 
pect for the victory of His cause from man, thrown with His hopes 

and expectations only upon His heavenly Father, and upon the truth 
and power inherent in His life and works, and uniting with all this 
such elevated repose, such Still submission, and also such perfect 
patience with him who at this very moment was meditating the 
basest treachery!” Schenkel, p. 278,, E. Tr. 


22 Difficulties on the side of Unbelef 


real permanence can prove itself anything better than a 
mere local or national outgrowth of superstition. 

3. But this Rite, though it is utterly unlike anything 
ever thought of, invented, or taught before, though it 
commemorates a cruel and ignominious Death, though 
that Death was the disappointment of every hope and 
every anticipation of the first disciples, has been found 
capable of universal transplantation, has transcended 
alike the scene of its historic origin and the limits of 
race and clime, and wherever it has been received and 
celebrated the multiplied sacrifices of antiquity have 
retired before it into the darkness of oblivion. 

4. Now we can trace back this revolution to its source. 
We can tell when the old system. gave signs of 
‘vanishing away,” and the new Symbol, so unique and 
unprecedented, began to take its place. It is not a point 
so distant that we strain our minds in vain to realize it 
amidst the mists of a hoary antiquity. It is not a period 
of which we have no certain records or memorials. It 
produced historians of good repute, whose narratives of 
the events of their own time are universally accepted as 
authentic and trustworthy. It was a period in which the 
“transactions of every province within the limits of the 
late Macedonian and then Roman Empire—the bar- 
barian, so termed, as well as the Grecian, and the acts of 
Herod among the number—were the objects of research 
and careful narration, by natives of the soil as well as by 
strangers.”* 


* Mill’s Pantheism, 1. ii. sect. 11 3 Eclipse of Faith, p. 210; 
Aids to Faith, p. 71; Restoration of Belief, pp. 40, 41 ; Sherlock's 
Trial of the Witnesses, Discourse iv. 360. 


in accounting for Listorical Christianity. 2% 


5. To represent, therefore, that this Rite can be re- 
garded as embodying a gradually developed Mythology, 
is to ascribe it to causes utterly inadequate to meet the 
facts of the case. ‘There is no known instance of a 
mythical history growing up in such an age,* under such 
circumstances, and with the rapidity we know it spread 
amongst Christian societies of many different nations 
and languages. A Rite of such marked peculiarity pre- 
supposes an act of institution. Its universal spread 
presupposes a general acquaintance with the history of 
the institution. The first Christians were neither mystic 
philosophers, enthusiastic dreamers, nor weak and credu- 
lous men. ‘They were not likely to accept the history 
on mere hearsay, nor to celebrate a Rite so strange and 
unique without some adequate explanation. Mendo not 
lightly take up a creed which hits their fancy, or vaguely 
embodies their aspirations, at the cost of their lives, and 
with the certainty of being exposed to danger, suffering, 
and persecution. 

6. But when we look at the history of the institution 
of this Rite as it has come down to us,—and it is to be 
remembered that there is no other account of it,—we 
cannot but be struck’ with its remarkable brevity and 
conciseness. Considering all it was designed to import, 
considering its utterly unprecedented character as a 

* The idea of men writing mythic histories between the time of 
Livy and Tacitus, and St. Paul mistaking such for realities !” 
Arnold’s Lif, ii. 58.‘ In the whole sphere of criticism there is no 
absurdity more uncritical than the idea that a rite which universally 


prevailed should have grown up accidentally and gradually, espe- 
cially a rite of such marked peculiarity.” LEbrard, Gospel History. 


P- 409. 


24 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


Jewish institution, considering the shock which the idea 
of commemorating the death of a Crucified Messiah must 
necessarily have involved to the mind of every Jew, it is 
brief to a degree perfectly astonishing. We find nowhere 
any long, laboured, and specific justification of its in- 
stitution. We find nowhere any minute and circum- 
stantial directions as to the method of its celebration, 
such as we find in the Apostolic constitutions.* In the 
Evangelic narrative the account is brief, simple, and 
artless. In those documents the particularity of direction 
is like that of a “ modern rubric.” 

7. Paley has noticed these features of the narrative as 
strong proofs of its genuineness. If the account ‘had 
been feigned,” he remarks, ‘it would have been more 
full: it would have come nearer to the actual mode of 
celebrating the Rite, as that mode obtained very early 
in Christian Churches; and it would have been more 
formal than it is.”t To this we may add, that it is 
too brief, simple, and concise for a scheme resting either 
on imposture or on an eclectic Mythology. ‘The super- 


structure is too solid and weighty to rest on such founda- - 


tions as these. The simplicity of the account is too 
grand for the impostor or the enthusiast, and we will now 
present our conclusion from the facts we have reviewed. 
_1o. The early Christians must have been able to give 
some adequate account of the historical facts of the case,} 
before they could either have celebrated themselves or 
taught others in different lands to adopt a Rite so novel 


* See Paley’s Avidences, 1. vii. 3. + Ibid. Part 11. chap. iii. 
¢ More substantial than the ¢ezzte de suave mysticit2, which Renan 
ascribes to their imagination, Vie de Fésus, chap. xxiii. 


ee ee eee 


in accounting for Listorical Christianity. 25 


and unprecedented as this. The historical fact this 
Rite proclaims was their Master’s cruel and ignominious 
death; and He ordained it to proclaim His death. 
Now, if after it took place—and this we know has 
never been disproved—He passed away and was no 
more seen ; if between His death and the celebration of 
the Rite by the first disciples there was no intervening 
event to link the one thing with the other—the celebra- 
tion of this Rite, at such an age of the world’s history, 
and by those who celebrated it, is, on natural principles, 
more miraculous and more inexplicable than anything 
that ever occurred in the world. 


WV Ls 


1. Was there any event, then, intervening between the 
death of the Institutor and its celebration by the first 
disciples ? Was there anything which transfigured the 
shame of their Master’s Death, and presented the whole 
action in a new light ? 

2. Their own conduct when that Death took place has 
been described minutely with the most artless simplicity. 
When He died, the Evangelic narratives admit that one 
alone of the Apostles was standing by His Cross,* that 
one had denied with an oath he had even known Him,t 
that all had forsaken Him and fled.{ ‘This is their own 
account of the matter. They neither hide nor disguise, 
they neither palliate nor excuse it. With singular open- 


* John xxi. 25, 26. 
+ Matt. xxvi. 69-753 Mark xiv. 66—72; Luke xxii. 54—62 ; 
John xviii. 15~—27. t~ Matt. xxvi. 56. 


26 Difficulties on the side of Unbeltef 


ness, with surprising particularity, they dwell upon the 
story of their own cowardice and faithlessness. 

3. What interest they had in describing themselves as 
worse than they really were it is difficult to see. But if 
then they were cowards, stupefied with sorrow and over- 
whelmed with despair, what made them bold afterwards ? 
If before they never could bear the idea of their Master’s 
Death, and when it took place were crushed to the earth 
with disappointment, with what conceivable object could 
they have joined within a very short period in this Eu- 
charistic Feast, and that in the very city where He died ?* 
Why did they ever rally together again to commemorate 
His Death, and to proclaim by a symbolical action the sad 
fate of One, whom they had: given up everything to fol- 
low, but in whose grave every hope was now buried ? 

4. An adequate and consistent explanation of these 
extraordinary facts is needed. Is there one such produ- 
cible ? 

5. There is one, which, in spite of obloquy, contempt, 
and cruel persecution, the first disciples made it the busi- 
ness of their lives to proclaim, which every extant letter 
of every Apostle, and every author contemporaneous with 
the Apostles, of the age immediately succeeding them, 
and every Christian writer from that age to the present, 
concur in representing as a fact no less historical than 
that of the death of the Institutor of the Eucharistic 
Feast. 

6. The Evangelists inform us that when He died, His 


* Acts il. 46; xx. 7, 11.. Why also did they continue to attach 
to this Meal even the ‘‘mystic sense” which Renan admits, Zes 
A pitres, chap. v.? 


am accounting for fistorical Christianity. 27 


Body was taken down from the Cross and laid in a new 
tomb.* They are careful to impress upon us—with 
what object it is difficult to see, unless it was true—that 
even this act of kindness and consideration was: due not 
‘to any of the Apostolic body, but to secret disciples and 
comparative strangers. In that tomb the Holy Body lay 
during the Friday night, Saturday, and Saturday night 
which followed the sad scene on Calvary. A sealed stone 
and a guard of Roman soldiers, we are told, protected 
the spot and defended it from the intrusion alike of friends 
and enemies. But early in the morning of the third day, 
a day which ever since has been observed,{ that stone 
was found to have been rolled away, and the sepulchre 
was discovered empty.§ 

7. A fact more momentous in its significance it is im- 
possible to conceive, but as a fact it was placed beyond 
all doubt, and it is related with the same simplicity, calm- 
ness, and absence of strain and effort as any other inci- 
dent in the life of the Lord. Indeed, so simple and art- 
less is the narrative at this point, so blended is it with 
confessions of fear, doubt, misgiving, and incredulity, 
that as we read the record we almost forget the marvellous 
features of the occurrence, and can with difficulty realize 
its exceptional character.|| 


* Matt. xxvil. 57—-61; Mark xv. 42—47; Luke xxiii. 50—56; 
John xix. 38—42. + Matt. xxvii. 62—66. 

{ Barnab. Zp. xv. Aw kal dyouev thy huépay rhv dyddny eis 
evppoctyyy, év 7 6’ Inoous avéorn ék vexpav. 

§ Thus much Renan, Les Apédtres, chap i., and Schenkel, p. 311, 
admit. 

|| Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 157+ 


28 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


8. But if the sepulchre was empty, where was He who 
had been laid therein? He was no longer there,* He 
had risen, and by many infallible proofs He gave token 
of the reality of the fact. On the world’s first Easter 
Day He show Himself to Mary Magdalene,; to the other 
ministering women, to St. Peter,§ to two disciples jour- 
neying towards Emmaus,|| to ten of the Apostles in the 
upper room at Jerusalem, when St. Thomas was absent. 
Eight days afterwards He manifested Himself to them 
when that Apostle was present.** Subsequently He was 
seen byseven of their number on the lake of Gennesaret, TT 
then by St.. James,{} then by more than five hundred 
brethren at once on a mountain in Galilee,§§ and lastly by 
all the Apostles once more on one of the hills near 
Bethany, where He was parted from them, and ascended 
into heaven.|| ||. 

9. Simple as the narrative is, it is circumstantial in the 
details it records. Every avenue of misconception was 
closed up, every ground for delusion was removed. “It 
was not one person but many who saw the Risen Saviour. 
They saw Him not only separately, but together ; not by 
night only, but by day ; not at a distance, but near; they 
not only saw Him, but touched Him, conversed with Him, 
ate with Him, examined His Person to satisfy their 


* Luke xxiv. 3. + John xx. 11—18 [Mark xvi. 9—1 rH. 


+ Matt. xxviii. 9, 10; Mark xvi. 5—7; Luke xxiv. 4—8. 
§ Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv, 5. || Luke xxiv. 13—35. 


q Luke xxiv. 36—43 ; John xx. 19—25 [Mark xvi. 14]. 

_ ** John xx, 26—29, +f John xxi. 1—24. ff 1 Cor, xv. 7. 
§§ Matt, xxvii. 16—18; 1 Cor. xv, 6. 
|| Luke xxiv, 50—53; Acts i. 3—12, 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. — 29 


doubts.”* It is conceivable that the enthusiasm.of a single 
member of the Apostolic company could have given an 
imaginary shape to individual hopes. But it is impossible 
to conceive how a number of witnesses, all incredulous, + 
and one pre-eminently so, could have been simultaneously 
affected in the same’ manner. 

10. The Institutor of this Rite rose from the dead. This 
is the historical fact, to which the Apostles declared that - 
they were raised up to bear witness. Upon it they staked 
everything, their life, their credit, their veracity, and 
their hopes. In order to proclaim it they confronted 
danger, suffering, and death itself in some of its most 
appalling forms. As believers in it they were obliged 
to become separate from other men, to sever the ties of 
home and family and common intercourse, to exchange 
all that life holds dear for sacrifices which made life little 
better than a daily martyrdom. It is important ever to 
bear in mind what joining the Christian Society meant in 
early times ; for even if we allow that the majority of 
men were at this period uncritical and credulous, aud 
that they were unacquainted with the rigorous demands 
of “exact science,” yet it cannot be said that they were 


* Paley’s Evidences, I. viii. 

F “‘Itis most instructive to notice that the resort of the Lord’s 
Resurrection was in each case disbelieved. Nothing less than sight 
convinced those who had the deepest desire to believe the tidings : 
and even sight was not in every case immediately convincing,” — 
Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 111. 

£1 Cor. xv, 15. ‘There is something to him very touching in 
the manner in which the Apostle writes this monstrous supposition. 
That Ae should be a false witness! a thing incredible and mon- 
strous.’’—Robertson’s Lectures on First Corinthians, p. 253. 


30 Difficulties on the side of Onbelief 


more credulous than men in any age have been found to 
be when worldly interests are in jeopardy and an entire 
change of conduct is demanded, when old habits have to 
be broken up, and insult, contempt, danger, and a death 
of torment, to be confronted.* 

11. A hope of a life beyond the grave, a prospect of 
his own resurrection, was all that the early Christian had 
to support him in hours which try men to the uttermost, 
and show of what stuff they are made. If his hopes 
were bounded by this life only, if they were rounded off 
by this “bank and shoal of time,” then indeed he was 
of all men most miserable.t His life was a blunder, a 
gratuitous folly, and it is impossible but to believe that 
the early converts weighed carefully the evidence upon 
which they were called to exchange ease for toil, comfort 
for discomfort, quiet for perpetual danger. 

12. The more the subject is considered, the more 
hopeless it will be found to reconcile with what went 
before the vast and overmastering change which came over 
the entire thoughts and feelings of the Apostles after the 
death of their Master, wzthout some intervening fact as 
certain and as historically real as that event itself. The 
more the subject is considered, the more hopeless it 
will be also found to reconcile the celebration of the 
Eucharist, considering all that it imported, and the age 
in which its celebration began, with the gradual cessation 
of the ancient sacrificial cu/tus, except on the supposition 
that something occurred between the Passion and the 


* See Butler’s Analogy, part 11. chap. vii, 
t Envcewdrepo. raurwuy Opdmrwdy éouév, 1 Cor, xv. 19. 


in accounting for LHistorical Christianity. 31 


observance of this Rite, powerful enough to remove 
once and for eve1 the torturing doubts which must ever 
have attended the celebration of the Eucharist, and 
glorious enough to transfigure the desolation and despair 
of the Story of the Cross.* 

13. A “splendid guess,” a “vague but loving hope,” 
a doctrine founded on subjective ideas, the dream of an 
enthusiast,—these will not account for facts so hard, ob- 
jective, stubborn, and indubitable. They will not bear 
the weight of the superstructure they have to support, 
they crumble to dust before the vastness of the revolution for 
which they have to account. The Resurrection—and the 
Resurrection alone—supplies an adequate cause, an his- 
torical event sufficient to account for historical facts. 
“As a fact with which the disciples were familiarised by 
repeated proofs, it was capable of removing each linger- 
ing doubt: as a Revelation of which the meaning was 
finally made known by the withdrawal of Christ from the 
earth, it opened a new region and form of life, the ap- 
prehension of which would necessarily influence all their 
interpretations of the Divine promises. If the crucified 
Lord did rise again, we can point to effects which answer 
completely to what we may suppose to have been the 
working of the stupendous miracle on those who were the 
first witnesses of it: if He did not, to what must we look 


* “We shall not say too much if we designate the Supper the 
climax of the ancient Christian worship, in which the congregation 
celebrated its reconciliation with God in Christ, the Mediator be- 
tween God and man ; and find in its uninterrupted celebration the 
first proof of the steadfast faith of the Church in the Divine nature 
of Christ.” —Dorner’s Person of Christ. i. 186, E. Tr. 


32 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


for an explanation of phenomena for which the Resur- 
rection is no more than an adequate cause ?”* 


VIII. 


1. Before I close, let me finally review the difficulties 
with which we are confronted, supposing that the Resurrec- 
tion was not a fact and the Gospel History is not true. 
Let us survey them calmly, and see if they do not 
involve conclusions more miraculous and unaccountable 
than anything that has ever occurred. 

2. If the Resurrection is not an historical fact, we are 
called upon to believe that plain, simple, unsophisticated 
men like the Apostles, who had been trained from their 
youth up in sacrificial habits, who from early associations 
would naturally have been disposed to exalt the ancient 
ritual, and did adhere to many of their ancient customs, 
yet could bring themselves to assert that the entire system 
of sacrifice was “dene away” and “fulfilled” in and 
through the death of One, who by that death only dis- 
appointed every hope and dashed to the ground , 
anticipation they had ever cherished. 

3. We are called upon to believe that they could de- 
tach themselves from and persuade many others also to 
forsake a religion which even at the final siege of Jeru- 


* Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection, pp- 118, 119. “The 
fact of a Christian Church being formed at all notwithstanding the 
shock which the idea of a crucified Messiah must necessarily have 
given to the mind of every Israelite of that day, can only be explained 
on the assumption of the Divinity of Christ and the historical reality 
. of His Resurrection.” —Ebrard’s Gospel History, p. 447. 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. ez 


salem still exercised an irresistible spell over the minds 
of thousands and tens of thousands in Palestine ; which 
with all its far-back memories and associations could 
kindle a fire of enthusiasm in the heart even of the rene- 
gade Josephus :* which could rally to the banner of the 
boasting impostor Barcochab multitudes of the nation 
burning with zeal and filled with the enthusiasm resulting 
from the consciousness of past greatness and former 
triumphs ;+ that they could forsake all this and persuade 
others to join a Society which could offer as a com- 
pensation for the loss of recollections so august, and of 
institutions so hallowed by time, “erally nothing. 

4. We are called upon to believe that men who till the 
last moment could not bring themselves to realise the 
possibility of their Master's death, who whenever He 
spoke to them on the subject could not understand His 
words or comprehend His meaning, who on the day He 
died were scattered as sheep without a shepherd, every 
hope buried in His grave, could within fifty days after 
the eyent be transformed into new men, with new hopes, 
new conceptions, new impulses, could confront danger, 
face persecution, and ascribe to a Crucified Man divine, 
predicates, which stood in direct contradiction to Jewish 
monotheism—though for such an ascription they could 
adduce no reason or justification higher at best than a 
‘vague impression” or an “ enthusiastic fancy.” 


* Joseph, Bell. Fud. chap. i, ; Stanley’s Sermons on the Apos- 
lolical Age, p. 354. 

t ‘* Even after the destruction of Jerusalem many Jews clung to 
the hope of the renewal of the Temple. and the restoration of the 
services in their full splendour.” Déllinger, ii. 416. 


Le) 


—— 


34 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 


s, We are called upon to believe that in an age when 
neither civilisation nor philosophy had eradicated or sim- 
plified the ancient sacrificial ritual, when men were rather 
exhausting themselves in their efforts to invent some 
fresh ceremony of superstition, and were seeking in cruel 
and revolting rites purification from guilt and ease of 


‘mind, yet there emerged at this period, from the centre 


of Judaism, a Society of men to embody in a mysterious 
Rite the idea that all sacrificial observances had found 
their consummation and fulfilment in the degrading 
death of an obscure Galilean, who expiated the charge of 
blasphemy on the Cross. | 

6. Finally, we are called upon to believe that though 
the Rite only commemorated another of the innumerable 
triumphs of the great conqueror Death, though it only 
embodied a Disappointment, and enshrined Despair, yet, 
in spite of the proverbial difficulty of discovering any 
religion which can transcend the limits of its original 
home, it has secured an undisputed acceptance among the 
most cultured nations, and has succeeded in banishing 
into the darkness of oblivion one of the most deeply 
rooted forms of religious worship which has ever 
appeared in the world. 

7. It is only necessary to review these difficulties, to 
see that they remain, and for ever must remain, ab- 
solutely unintelligible without the fact of the Re- 
surrection. But if we accept the Resurrection as 
a fact as truly historical as the Passion, then we are in 
a position to interpret events which are notorious, which 
took place not in a fabulous age, but one of which we 
know a great deal, and which had its records, its monu- 


in accounting for Historical Christianity. <5 


ments, and its archives. We can understand whence 
came the flood of light which irradiated the minds of the » 
first disciples, and which revealed to them once for all 
the true meaning of a Death they had not before dared 
to contemplate or even make the subject of enquiry. 

8. If we accept the Resurrection as a fact, we can 
look back and see how it came to pass that, in spite of 
_the shame of the Cross, the Christian Society could 
gather and concentrate itself around the Person and 
Work of Him who died thereon, and how the associations 
connected with a grand historical Deliverance of a single 
nation, commemorated in a Paschal Feast, could be 
absorbed in the commemoration of a grander, wider, 
more universal Victory. 

9. This solution places us on sure and solid ground. 
We can look back and trace out the efficient cause of the 
greatest religious revolution the world has seen. In the 
Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, the Past and the 
Present find a common meeting point,* and shed each on 
the other a mutual light. That which was Lerfect had 
come, that which was in Part was done away. 

ro. But if the Resurrection is nothing higher than a 
“‘vague impression” or a “glorious guess,” what hope 
have we in this mysterious world ? We must believe that 
its religious history was for upwards of four thousand 
years a long, purposeless parenthesis of useless rites and 
idle ceremonies. We must believe that Judaism pointed 

on to nothing, which was to be the reality and substance 


* See Schlegel’s Philosophy of History, p. 278; and Professor 
Westcott’s remarks on the Resurrection and History, pp. §3— 134. 


36 Difficulties on the side of Unbeliéf. 


of its mysterious ordinances.* We must believe that 
there was no Perfect Sacrifice, for which the ten thousand 
sacrifices of heathenism were a confused outcry. We 
must believe that “ Death still remains the great Con- 
queror,” of whose defeat no pledge event has been given 
to mankind. 

10. “Nature,” says Goethe,t “ tosses her creatures out 
of nothingness, and tells them not whence they come or 
whither they go: she wraps man in darkness, and makes 
him for ever long for light.” Is abject prostration before 
her terrible forces and inexorable laws still to remain the 
only attitude for man? What else is left for him, if the 
deepest yearning of his heart has never been satisfied, if 
He, who died upon the Cross, still lies near a Syrian 
town, and His Resurrection is a dream P 


* See Archer Butler’s Sermons, i. 262. ‘‘ Judaism with a typified 
atonement may be a miracle, or a chain of miracles; but Judaism 
without it isa greater miracle still.” 

+ On the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ledge of 
our redemption, see Canon Swainson’s Hulsean Lectures, p. 213 5 
Archbp. Trench Ox the Miracles, p. 35. 

+ Goethe’s Aphorisms on Nature, quoted in Farrar’s “ulsear 
Lectures, Ps 43 Ne 


THE VARIATIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN 
THEIR RELATION TO THE EVIDENCES 
AND »TRKUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. 


\ 


BY THE 


REV IcEAR: BIRKS, M.A., CAMB., 


Prajessor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, and 
Honorary Canon of Ely Cathedrai. 


Car 


Che Variations of the Gospels in 
their dvelation to the Evidences 
and Cruth of Christianity, 


“*T*HE variations in the Gospels, in the midst ot 
substantial unity, are no argument against their 
historical truth.” Such is the original title of this 
lecture. The assertion is very modest and cautious. 
But I cannot do justice to my own convictions, or to the 
line of thought I wish to unfold, without going much 
beyond this purely defensive and limited averment. The 
real thesis I shall seek to establish, so far as time will 
allow, may be stated in these words: “The unity of the 
four Gospels amidst their partial diversity, and their 
diversities amidst substantial unity, are a powerful argu- 
ment for their veracity, and the truth of the main facts 
they record. They are also a proof that the writers 
were guided and controlled by a higher wisdom than 
their own, and thus confirm the claim of the Gospels to 
be viewed as a Divine message to mankind.” 
The four Gospels, even apart from their sacred cha- 
racter, have certain features in which they seem unique 


40 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


and without a parallel. The number of persons, of 
whom memoirs have been published, is very great ; and 
that of the memoirs themselves, of course, is much 
greater still. They vary widely in size and extent, from 
a few pages to several volumes. In this vast multitude 
of writings, I doubt whether another instance can be 
found of four memoirs, and four only, of the same person, 
professedly written by eye-witnesses of his life, or their 
immediate companions, each complete in itself, so brief 
that six or seven would be needed to make a volume of 
ordinary size, so closely connected that three of them 
have often been supposed to have made use of some 
common document, so distinct that friends as well as 
adversaries have often ascribed to them partial contra- 
diction, and still oftener entire independence, and yet 


producing, when compared together, an almost irresis- 


tible impression of reality, honesty, and truth. In 
the whole range of known biographical literature, this 
fact seems to stand alone. No writings of the kind have 
left on plain and simple readers a stronger impression of 
reality. None have occasioned more difficulty to those 
who look below the surface, compare them with each 
other, and seek to explain in a reasonable way at once 
their differences and their agreement. The instrument 
is most simple. The effect produced is constant, long- 
lasting, and profound. These four simple, unadorned 
narratives, amounting to less than three hundred octavo 
pages, have determined and upheld the faith of millions 
of readers, have inspired the great, the noble, and the 
wise, with thoughts and hopes full of immortality, and 
have moulded the very history of the world through sixty 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. AI 


generations down to the present day. Devout Christians 
see and own in this great fact the finger of God. The 
more closely they study it, the more will they find to 
confirm their faith. And sceptical doubters may well be 
invited to turn aside and see this strange sight, like that 
which Moses saw in the desert. The bush is so mean 
and humble in form and size, but it is lit up manifestly 
with a Divine glory. It has been beat upon with the 
fierce light of opposition and hatred, and surrounded by 
flames of persecution; and still it abides in its lowly 
beauty, unconsumed and imperishable, from age to age. 

Let us first observe the remarkable unity of the four 
Gospels in the midst of their manifold diversity. We 
shall find here many clear marks of Divine wisdom, 
adapting them to their great object, and scarcely capable 
of being assigned to the purpose of the separate writers. I 
would single out these features, their fourfold character ; 
their brevity, their silence, their simplicity, their propor- 
tion, their selection of minor incidents, their common 
aim and issue, rising through facts of history into a 
message of religious faith. 

The first and simplest view of the Evangelists is that 
they are witnesses to the truth of certain facts, on which 
the whole fabric of Christianity depends. Now the rule 
of common sense and of the Jewish law is the same, that 
“in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word 
be established.” A single Gospel, of the same length as 
the four we now have, and including all their details, 
would by no means answer the same end, and supply the 
historical basis which is needed, where the superstructure 
is of such immense importance. ‘There would then be 


42 The Variations of the Gospels in thew Relation 


no concurrence of testimony. The building of our faith, 
instead of resting harmoniously on four pillars, would 
rest on one pillar alone. The principle laid down alike 
by Divine and human law would be set aside ; and, how- 
ever honest the solitary witness might be, his testimony 
would be wanting in the simplest, the most usual, and 
the most decisive mode of confirmation. And hence, 
while some histories of the Old Testament are confirmed 
only by. fragmentary repetition in other books; and 
others occur in a double narrative, as in Samuel, Kings, 
and Chronicles; and some in a threefold account, as the 
Assyrian invasion and overthrow; a fourfold witness, 
exceeding the alternative of two or three witnesses 
prescribed in the law, is reserved for the Gospel record 
alone as the crowning and most vital part of the 
whole sacred history. This could be no plan of the 
earlier. Evangelists. . No sign of its contemplation, as a 
distinct purpose of the writer, appears even in the fourth 
Gospel, where there is no mention of the three which 
had already appeared. But a wisdom higher than their 
own has thus secured for all plain and simple readers an 
evidence of substantial truth, by the direct concurrence 
of two, three, and sometimes of four witnesses, which 
could not have been attained so fully and simply in any 
other way. 

A second feature of the Gospels, closely allied to the 
list, is their brevity. When four narratives are given 
instead of one, each of them needs to be more brief, 
or else the total may become of inconvenient length. 
For one object in records of such events as these, which 
bear a sacred character and are intended to found a new 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 43 


faith, must be ready accessibility and ease of reproduction. 
A Gospel history, rivalling in size a folio volume, would 
have been greatly inferior in practical value. It would 
have been more rarely copied, more seldom studied 
and read, and even perhaps by a very few learned 
students alone. Christianity would thus have been in- 
danger of becoming an esoteric creed, a kind of 
Eleusinian mystery, blindly received, with no roots 
in the general conscience, instead of a message ap- 
pealing to mankind at large. Its moral worth must 
have been obscured and clouded, even if it did not 
wholly disappear. But the Gospels, from their briet 
size, are within the reach of the learned and unlearned 
alike, and may easily be read, or heard and remembered 
when read by others, by all who really care to become 
acquainted with the great truths and facts they reveal. 
The Evangelists, if eye-witnesses, or intimates of eye- 
witnesses, must have had access to very large materials in 
those three years of our Lord’s ministry, in which every 
day had its work and message of Divine love. Where 
the topic was of such absorbing interest, each of them 
would thus be naturally tempted to compose a very full 
account of the sayings and doings of One whom they 
loved and adored. Or, even if we assume for a moment 
the rival hypothesis that they were idealists and en- 
thusiasts, who lived rather later, and whose actual mate- 
rials were more scanty, still in such enthusiasts the sam‘e 
temptation would have appeared in another form. They 
would be prone to amplify their materials by comments, 
fancies, and rhetorical or poetical additions of their own ; 
so that their work would gain in bulk, while it lost in 


44 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


solidity, and the rainbow hues of their own ardent fancy 
would have prolonged the narrative, and tinged it with 
a colouring due to that fancy alone. 

Such a result seems probable on either view, had the 
Evangelists been common writers, and, in composing 
these sacred memoirs of the Lord, whom they so reve- 
renced and honoured, had been left to their own human 
impulses and instincts alone. But now, on the contrary, 
a singular brevity marks all the four Gospels. Two of 
them correspond nearly in length to eighty pages of a 
modern octavo, the second to only fifty, and the fourth 
to sixty pages. And this in recording thirty years of a 
life, which they must have regarded with most profound 
interest, and three years of public labour, in which every 
day had actions or discourses worthy, in their view, of 
lasting honour and veneration. 

Near akin to this brevity of the Evangelists is their 
remarkable silence. Two of them give an account of 
the birth and infancy of the Lord Jesus, and one records 
a solitary visit to Jerusalem at twelve years of age. But 
with this one exception, all of them pass over thirty 
years of His life in absolute silence. From the visit to 
Jerusalem with Joseph and Mary, when He stayed 
behind in the temple, to the opening of the Baptist’s 
ministry, not one word is given on the life, the occu- 
pation, the friends, the companions or relatives, of the 
Master whom they loved and adored. Assuming the 
histories to be genuine, it is clear that their authors 
must have had access to a great variety of facts and 
incidents during those earlier years, of which no trace 
appears in the narrative. Indeed the later apocryphal 


to the Evidences and. Truth of Christianity. | 45 


Gospels, the products of unrestrained and unscrupulous 
fancy, abound in supposed incidents of this very kind. 
The instinct of human curiosity, when freed from the 
secret control which guided the four sacred writers, 
indulged itself by filling up a void of which it was 
impatient. The common reverent silence of all the four 
Gospels on those earlier years of privacy and retirement 
is one out of many signs, that they were secretly guided 
in their work by a wisdom higher than their own. 
Another feature of the four Gospels is their historical 
simplicity. The narrative they set before us is naked 
and unadorned. ‘There is no independent preface or 
conclusion, no rhetorical amplification, but only narrative 
of the simplest, plainest, and most straightforward kind. 
They record events full of wonder, miracles of startling 
grandeur, words of surprising tenderness and dignity, 
which must have touched and stirred the deepest chords 
of believing and pious hearts. But the most supersti- 
tious devotee hardly abstains more rigorously from food 
on a fast day than the Evangelists refrain from comment- 
ing, in their own person, on the great events and sacred 
discourses they record. In the three first Gospels this 
abstinence seems to be complete. In the fourth, the 
writing of St. John in his old age, and intended plainly for 
those who had read one or more of the earlier Gospels, 
the rigour of this law is relaxed, and a few passing com- 
ments are interposed. But even when we include the 
sublime and reverent introduction, and the digression in 
chap. xii. on Jewish unbelief, they amount altogether, 
even here, to less than one-twentieth of the whole. This 
strict and severe historical simplicity, complete in the 


46 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


three earlier Gospels, and slightly relaxed, under special 
reasons for the change, in the fourth only, is wholly 
unlike the practice of mere enthusiasts. It implies a 
secret control exercised over the minds of the writers, 
restraining them from all utterance of their own deepest 
emotions, and confining them to the one office of provid- 
ing a true and faithful record of the events themselves. 
Another feature common to the four Gospels is their 
historical proportion. Two only give some account of 
the birth and infancy of our Lord. But the space occu- 
pied by this part of the narrative is only one-twelfth of 
the Gospels where it appears, or just one-twentieth of the 
whole record. Except one brief incident in St. Luke, the 
thirty years that follow are passed over, in eachalike, in 
entire silence. The three years of the public ministry 
occupy two-thirds in St. Matthew and St. Mark, three- 
fourths in St. Luke, and three-fifths in St. John. The 
single week of conflict and suffering at the close, with the 
appearances after the resurrection, form one-third of St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, one-fourth in St. Luke, and two- 
fifths in St. John; or one-third of the four narratives, 
taken together. This one week then, with its sequel, 
fills as large a place in one Evangelist, and a larger in 
the rest, than each year, on the average, of the public 
ministry. Such a fulness in this part of the record may 
be explained in some measure by the deep interest it 
awakened in the minds of the writers, and of their readers, 
the first disciples. But this near approach to the same 
proportion in all the four, when combined further with 
their common silence as to all the earlier years, is a mark 
. of Divine unity of plan in the fourfold narrative, hardly 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 47 


to be explained by human authorship alone, and which: 
must impress every thoughtful and observant mind. 

The large proportion of common incidents or repeated 
narratives is another prominent feature of the Gospels. 
Nearly every incident which is given by St. Mark appears 
also in St. Matthew, and also more than half, perhaps 
nearly two-thirds, of those which are recorded by St. 
Luke after the public ministry began. Now the facts and 
words recorded in all the Gospels must bear a small pro- 
portion to the events themselves. This contrast receives 
a passing notice from St. John at the close of the fourth 
Gospel. During the three years of our Lord’s ministry each 
_ day would have had its work, or its sayings and discourses, 
public or private, worthy of record, and all would be of 
deep interest to the first believers in Jesus as the long 
promised Messiah, the Incarnate Son of God. Such 
words or actions, we may well suppose, filled up six or 
seven hours at least of every day throughout the thousand 
days of that public ministry. And how much, or rather 
how little, has been placed on record! All the sayings 
of our Lord in the four Gospels, even neglecting the 
plain fact that repeated records are given of the same 
address or conversation, might be read or spoken deli- 
berately within six or seven hours only. Thus it appears 
that what is actually recorded is not one part in a hun- 
dred, but more nearly one in a thousand, of the whole 
amount of what the Lord Jesus did and spoke during His 
public ministry. Thus the words of St. John are a very 
lawful hyperbole, that if the whole were recorded, “ the 
world would not be able to contain the books that 
should be written.” 


48 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


How is it that, while the materials in themselves were 
so ample, the writers traverse plainly so much common 
ground? ‘The fresh facts in the third and fourth Gospels 
show clearly that means of enlargement and expan- 
sion were within their reach. Consciously or uncon- 
sciously, they thus fulfilled one main purpose of con- 
senting witnesses of the events, by confirming each 
other’s testimony to the main facts of their common 
narrative. If the later had seen the earlier, as must 
clearly have been the case with St. John, this does not 
affect the conclusion. One main object of a fourfold 
record is signally fulfilled, and, most of the selected 
incidents being the same, in the mouth of two or three 
witnesses the words are established. 

There is another mark of unity, nowhere obtrusive, 
which underlies all the four narratives. Their common 
object is to prove the great doctrine that Jesus of Naza- 
reth is the true Messiah of God. And hence, unlike the 
Epistles, or even the Book of Acts, the personal name, 
Jesus, is used simply throughout, almost to the exclusion 
of every other. This practice is uniform and constant 
in the two earlier Gospels, with one exception at the 
very close of the second. In St. Luke there are only 
about ten exceptions, and in St. John about six or seven 
in explanatory remarks, while the name Jesus is actually 
used more than two hundred times in either Gospel. 
Titles of honour and reverence, such as occur perpetually 
in all the Epistles, must have risen spontaneously to 
their lips. That they should uniformly have refrained 
from them is more than a mark of unity in the midst of 
diversity. It is a sign also of that secret wisdom by 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 49 


which these sacred memoir-writers were guided and 
controlled. The hand of God’s Spirit was upon 
them, while they wrote, and, in spite of their strong 
instinct of deep reverence for their Divine Master, 
confined them to the use of that simpler title, Jesus, 
which suited best with the great purpose of their 
record. An advocate is unskilful, and damages his 
own cause, who assumes in the outset that guilt or 
innocence of his client which it is his business to prove. 
The Evangelists, then, were not allowed to obtrude pre- 
maturely their own deep convictions on their readers. 
The facts were to speak for themselves without a com- 
mentary. And this design, common to all the four 
writers, is simply and clearly stated at the close of the 
latest Gospel: “These things are written, that ye may 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that 
believing ye may have life through His name.” 

The variations of the Gospels, however, have often 
been held to counteract the evidence of their truth and 
inspiration, derived from these and other marks of 
striking unity in the four narratives, and their consent in 
all the main facts they reveal. I believe that they have 
really, when closely questioned, and seen aright, an 
opposite effect ; and supply still stronger reasons, because 
more latent, and needing deeper thought for their 
detection, to prove them not only honest and veracious 
narratives, but inspired messages of sacred truth. The 
subject, however, is too wide and inexhaustible to be 
treated properly in a single lecture. I will strive to con- 
dense as much as possible under seven or eight heads, 
some of the main grounds which lead me, without any 


hesitation or doubt, to this important conclusion. 
4 


30 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


The mutual relation of differing witnesses to the same 
facts or events may be roughly classed under five varieties : 
dishonest and collusive agreement; honest agreement, 
but deceptive and illusive ; honest discordance, so wide 
and deep as to render the consent nearly worthless ; a 
like discordance so limited and partial, as to strengthen 
the remaining concurrence, and leave the weight of the tes- 
timony not seriously impaired ; and, last of all, consistent. 
and reconcilable diversity, which confirms in the fist 
place the independence and plurality of the witness, 
and, when questioned more deeply, serves to establish 
its perfect truth. 

The first case is that of a collusive and fraudulent 
concert to bear false witness. In this case the agreement, 
at first sight, may: seem more perfect than with genuine 
evidence. But the seeming perfection of the harmony, 
unless the witnesses are of high character, and well- 
known, awakens strong suspicion, and the.consent breaks 
down in a rigorous cross-examination on points over- 
looked and forgotten in the concerted story. The diver- 
sities of the Gospels, which have perplexed believers, 
and gratified hasty adversaries, have at least one clear 
gain. They exclude this first alternative altogether. No 
dishonest compact could have produced. four Gospels 
with so much of seeming discordance hard to explain. - 

The second case is that of an agreement illusive, but 
not dishonest. In our courts of law important witnesses 
in a cause are not allowed to be present, while any one of 
them is giving evidence. It is not supposed that most 
of them would be dishonest, and consciously garble 
their own statements, so as to agree better with those which 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. BI 


they have heard. But it is wisely judged that witnesses 
ofimperfect memory and average clearness of thought and 
judgment would be biassed unconsciously bysuch previous 
knowledge. If they wished to confirm the general drift 
of the previous evidence, they would emphasize points of 
agreement, and insensibly pass by points of difference, or 
those of which their own first impressions were different 
and opposite. The evidence, if not rendered a mere 
repetition, would become more alike, or in the case of 
opposing witnesses more widely divergent, than if their 
depositions were made in perfect ignorance of those 
which had gone before. The divergences of the Gospels 
equally exclude this second hypothesis. There is no 
such agreement, either collusive or illusive, as would 
result from dishonest concert, or even from the uncon- 
scious moulding of independent testimony to avoid any 
appearance of discord and partial contradiction. 

Many Christian writers have carried this view so far 
as to maintain that the Evangelists wrote in complete in- 
dependence, and never saw each other's writings. But 
this is to assume an improbable fact, without evidence, in 
order to strengthen a conclusion which results directly 
from the certain facts alone. The divergences of the 
Gospels really prove the truth of one of two alternatives, 
and do not decide between them. The first is that the 
later had not seen the earlier, and were wholly inde- 
pendent. The second is that they were witnesses too 
honest, too vivid, and of too high an order, to garble 
their own testimony, or disguisedivergences in their view of 
the life they record, in order to avoid the risk of being 
charged with contradiction, and thus to produce on super- 
ficial minds an impression of more complete agreement. 


52 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


Three alternatives then alone remain. T he first is 
that of the honest doubter or sceptic, who thinks that 
the Gospels contain proofs of partial contradiction, 
and these so extensive as really to damage and almost 
destroy their claims to credit, even where they agree. 
The second is that of many Christians, more candid and 
accommodating than thorough going and entire in their 
defence of the Gospel history. The third and last is. 
that which has been the usual faith of the Church of 
Christ, and to which I myself fully and firmly adhere, 
that the contradictions of the Gospels are apparent, not 
real; that they change sides when closely and fairly ex- 
amined, and are then transformed into more latent and 
decisive evidence of théir common truth and Divine in- 
spiration. 

Now in comparing the two former views, truth requires 
an admission to be made on either side. If the facts 
recorded in the Gospels were common facts, and the case 
were the same as of an ordinary civil or criminal trial, 
or anhistorical inquiry of the usual kind, the preponderance 
+n favour of the Christian advocate would be ‘immense 
and overwhelming. ‘The substantial agreement so far 
exceeds the partial disagreements, as, when every abate- 
ment is made for alleged inaccuracies or apparent 
contradictions, to leave the main evidence far stronger 
than that of any single testimony, however honest and 
trustworthy. But then, on the other hand, the case is 
not the same. ‘The facts to be attested are special and 
extraordinary. They depart wholly from the usual cha- 
racter of human experience. They profess to be the 
groundwork of a Divine revelation, which claims the 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. as 


allegiance, and affects the present and future destiny, of 
countless millions ofmen. ‘The foundation of a building 
needs to be strong, in proportion to the weight of the 
superstructure to be reared upon it. The Gospel history, 
from its very object and nature, needs a degree of strength 
in the evidence of its truth beyond the measure of a com- 
mon suit at law, or any ordinary question in modern his- 
tory. These writings claim indirectly to be sacred 
documents, records of a Divine message. As such they 
have been received and honoured by the Church in suc- 
cessive generations. An amount of inaccuracy and con- 
tradiction, which would scarcely have any sensible effect 
in lowering their character, and weakening the effect of 
their concurrence, if their contents were of a vulgar and 
ordinary kind, must here assume a very different impor- 
tance. In the first place, it destroys at once their claims 
to special and Divine inspiration in the sense which 
Christians have usually attached to the phrase, for a God 
of perfect truth and holiness cannot prompt and inspire 
even partial falsehood. And it forms a moral objection, 

even to their substantial truth, of a very real kind. Such 
a message, involving results of immense and vital import- 
ance, according as it is neglected or received, must surely 
demand from the wisdom of its Author some answerable 
care in the mode of its delivery to mankind. It seems most 
unlikely, if truly Divine, that it would be obscured and 
placed in jeopardy, by entrusting it to ill-informed wit- 
nesses, who on many details disprove and contradict 
each other. So that these alternatives land us in a strange 
paradox. If the Gospel be viewed as a purely human 
message, the evidence is decisive and overwhelming to 


s4 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in ther Relation 


prove the truth of the main facts, and hence that the 
whole is Divine. If viewed as Divine, and the existence 
of partial and repeated contradictions be allowed, there 
arises at once a strong presumption against its super- 
natural claims, ‘which must tend to lower it to the rank of 
an ill-attested and therefore human message. 

But if, on the other hand, the seeming contradictions 
are apparent only, and the variations in the four Gospels 
are instances of reconcilable diversity, the body and form 
of the history and its moral essence are in harmony with 
each other. The apparent divergences are signs of the 
honesty of every separate witness, while their agreement ; 
beneath the surface, when brought to light, becomes even 
a stronger proof than their direct and open correspon- 
dence for the truth of their common message, and the 
Divine inspiration under which it has been given. And if 
I can show, under many different heads, that the variations 
are of this character, that they are not signs of imperfect 
knowledge, or the chance-medley of uninformed and 
careless narrators, but are full of marks of design which 
become visible only after close research, and do not appear 
on the surface, the thesis of this lecture will have been 
abundantly, though not exhaustively proved. 

The mutual relation of the four Gospels as to sameness 
and diversity is my first argument. Is this the result of 
chance and a fortuitous concourse of witnesses, if not 
dishonest, at least vague, enthusiastic, imperfectly-in- 
formed, or easily deceived? Or does it yield, when ex- 
amined, all the signs of a hidden and mysterious wisdom ? 
It may be urged, ona casual view, that St. Mark is so 
much like St. Matthew, and the incidents are so entirely 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 55. 


common, that it hardly can be viewed as a separate 
testimony ; and that the facts in St. John are so distinct 
as hardly to confirm the other Gospels, or to be confirmed 
by them, but rather to awaken the doubt how a miracle 
like the raising of Lazarus could have been silently 
omitted by three previous writers. 

But now let us apply a key which the Bible atid com- 
mon sense both provide, and at once a secret and unsus- 
pected harmony comes to light. ‘In the mouth of two 
or three witnesses every word shall be established.’ In 
weighty questions of fact the concurrence of two witnesses 
is almost essential, that of three is desirable, to be the 
ground of a reasonable faith. A fourth is a kind of 
luxury or superfluity. Hence, if we have four successive 
memoirs on a subject of high importance, which hold the 
character of human or Divine witnesses, when they are 
taken in order, three results naturally follow. The 
second, compared with the first, will have for its main and 
almost sole object to confirm the earlier testimony. The 
third, compared with its two predecessors, will have the 
double object, in almost equal measure, to confirm 
facts already given, and to supplement them with fresh 
information. The fourth, again, being nearly super- 
fluous for the end of confirmation, may be expected to be 
almost entirely a supplement and completion to the rest. 

Now this, on close observation, will be found to be the 
exact relation between the four Gospels ; assuming, as we 
may reasonably do, that the traditional order in which 
they now stand is also the true order of their first appear- 
ance. St. Mark differs doubly from St. Matthew, by a 
comparative absence of our Lord’s discourses, and by 


56 Zhe Variations of the Gospeis in their Relation 


the greater fulness with which the outward details of His 
miracles and journeyings are described. But the inci- 
dents recorded are almost wholly the same. ‘The chief 
exceptions are only these—the presence of wild beasts 
in the hour of temptation ; the healing of the deaf man in 
the coasts of Decapolis, and of the blind manat Bethsaida; 
the reply to St. John as to the man who was casting out 
devils in the name of Jesus ; and the incident of the young 
man, who fled naked from the soldiers in the hour of 
temptation, treachery, and sorrow. 

St. Luke, again, as compared with St. Matthew, holds 
exactly a middle place. He agrees with him, and differs 
from St. Mark, in recording the miraculous conception, 
the birth, and the infancy of the Lord Jesus. But the 
facts connected with them in detail are almost wholly 
different. Again, in the public ministry the facts recorded 
are either the same, or closely similar, through six chap- 
ters, or about one-fourth of the Gospel. The accounts 
then mainly diverge, though still with some common 
features, in Luke ix. 51—xviil. 14, or eight chapters and 
one-fourth of two others. ‘The agreement is then sub- 
stantial, though not complete and unbroken, through 
seven remaining chapters to the close. The confirmatory 
and supplemental characters thus coexist in nearly equal 
proportion. ; 

In St. John the relation varies once more, but still 
conforms to the same secret law. Except the record of 
the miracle of the five thousand in the former half of 
chapter vi., and that of the eventful week of the Passion, 
all the incidents, without exception, are fresh and 
original, and such as had not been given by the three 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 57 


others. Even in the record of the last week, the new 
facts or new discourses greatly exceed those which are 
resumed, and had been already given before. Yet still 
there are so many allusions to facts already recorded, as 
familiar and notorious, that the Gospel takes its place as 
one harmonious and needful element in the structure of 
the conjoint and fourfold narrative. 

This special relation of the four Gospels, inwrought 
into their whole texture, by which they are essentially 
diverse, with a distinct plan and method in their diver- 
sity, the second simply confirming the first, the third 
confirming and supplementing the first and second, the 
fourth and last restricted almost wholly to the office of 
supplementing those which had been published before, 
is a powerful argument that their variations, far from dis- 
proving their Divine origin, are really the direct 
consequence and effect of that Divine wisdom which 
presided at their birth. 

2. The historical unity and adaptation of each Gospel 
is a second argument. 

These four Gospels, however closely united and widely 
circulated in later times, must have had, each of them, its 
own immediate and special object, depending either on 
the date, or the special class of disciples or inquirers for 
whose use it was composed. The circle to which they 
all appealed was not homogeneous. In fact the history 
of the early growth of Christianity reveals four successive 
centres, and differing classes for whom such provision 
would naturally be made. ‘The first centre was Jeru- 
salem, or perhaps rather Galilee, the home and centre of 
the first disciples who were gained to the faith, and whose 


58 Lhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


first thought would be the conversion of their Jewish 
brethren. The second centre was Ceesarea, where the 
first Gentile convert, Cornelius, the Roman centurion, 
was gathered in. The Roman soldiers and civilians 
resident in Palestine were the first class, beyond the Jews, 
to whom the Gospel was accessible, and Ceesarea, the 
scene of that conversion, was like the Syrian outpost of 
Imperial Rome. The third centre was Antioch, where 
the name Christian had its birth, and where extensive 
preaching to the Greeks first began. The fourth and 
last centre was Ephesus, where St. Paul resided two years, 
and St. John still later took up his residence, with the other 
Asian churches, which form the subject of address in 
the opening of that prophecy, which carries on the sacred 
history, and completes the record of the New Testa- 
ment. 

The four Gospels have features of marked correspon- 
dence with these four successive centres of the early 
church history. They seem adapted, in the first place, 
for Jewish or Galilean inquirers and disciples, for Roman 
military converts, for the Greeks of Antioch and Syria; 
and for believers established in the faith, like the churches 
of Asia, over which St. John presided in his latest years. 
St. Matthew begins with the promises to the Jews in 
Abraham and David, and a genealogy wich connects our 
Lord with the line of the kings of Judah. He introduces 
him at once under this special title, the King of the Jews. 
He presents Him to us as the Lawgiver, greater than 
Moses, and appeals throughout to the Jewish prophecies 
which He fulfilled. St. Mark, again, whose name is a 
Roman name, records chiefly the actions of Christ, and 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 59 
omits His discourses, in harmony with the practical and 
outward character of the Roman mind. He uses the 
Latin, not the Greek name, for the Roman centurion 
and the executioner. He expounds Jewish usages, as if 
writing directly for readers who were outside the Jewish 
synagogue. But he nowhere expounds or explains Jewish 
localities, which implies that he addressed readers familiar 
with the country, and the sites and towns of Palestine. St. 
Luke, by early tradition, was a native and resident of 
Antioch. His Gospel, and still more the Book of Acts, 
have the features of classic Greek histories. He professes 
to have inquired closely into the facts by a comparison 
of authorities, and to observe the order of time. He 
introduces features especially Syrian, the government of 
Cyrenius, the years of Tiberius, the four tetrarchies and 
their occupants, the rivalry of Herod and Pilate, and the 
name of Herod’s steward, and speaks of Arimathea, 
“a city of the Jews,” as if his readers were not familiar 
with Jewish localities. St. John, again, writes as 
for those who were established in the faith, and fa- 
miliar with the names and character of the apostles, and 
he continually mentions the Jews in a way which 
implies that the separation of the Church from the Jewish 
people and synagogue was then complete. This unity, 
in character and tone of each Gospel, corresponding with 
four quickly successive stages of the Church’s develop- 
ment, and of which the types may be seen in Jerusalem 
and the five hundred Galilean disciples; in Czesarea, Cor- 
nelius, and the first Roman converts; in Antioch and the 
Hellenists who first received the title of Christians ; and in 
Ephesus and the Asian churches, when Jerusalem had 


60 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


fallen, and the Church had received its full development, 
is one out of many proofs that the diversity of the Gos- 
pels far from being the result of chance, and involving 
imperfection and contradiction, arises from the reality of 
their adaptation to special classes of readers in the early 
times. 


3. The moral and spiritual unity of each Gospel is a 


third argument that their diversity is no result of igno- 
rance and imperfection, but fulfils a secret and important 
design of their Divine Revealer. 

The Gospel is a message at once intensely real and 
sublimely ideal. In this it corresponds to the great 
doctrine on which it is based, the Incarnation. Each of 
the four has its distinctive unity on the real side, as 
adapted to a special class, for whose use it was first 
written. St. Matthew corresponds with the wants of the 
first Jewish inquirers, and St. John with those of the full- 
erown believers of the Asian churches. But there is a 
like distinction and contrast no less observable on the 


doctrinal and spiritual side. This has led to their asso- 


ciation, from early times, with the sacred symbols of the 
cherubim. Space will not allow me to amplify and con- 
firm this contrast. Stated briefly, it may be thus ex- 
pressed. The first Gospel looks backward, and links the 
life of Christ with all the earlier messages of the Old Tes- 
tament, and exhibits His claims as a Lawgiver and King. 
The second looks outward, and exhibits Him as the 
Great Husbandman, unwearied in patient labour. It 
omits His longer discourses, but gives the outward and 
visible details of His work far more largely than St. 
Matthew; and it retains this outward character to the last, 


+ 
Oe ee 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 6 


in the form of that parting charge, to preach the Gospel 
to every creature. St. Luke deals with the human and 
priestly or sacred elements of our Lord’s person and 
work. His Gospel looks forward to the later triumphs of 
the faith, and the spread of the Church, and hence it finds 
its continuation in a later work of the same writer, the 
Acts of the Apostles. St. John’s Gospel looks upward. 
It begins with a distinct revelation of the truth that Jesus 
is the Word of God, become incarnate for man’s salvation. 
And it closes, not with a message concerning the earthly 
diffusion of the Gospel, but like the others, with a call 
to heavenward aspiration: “Jesus saith unto him, 
Follow Me!” 

This double unity, which close observation reveals in 
éach of the four Gospels, both on the historical and the 
deal side, removes theirdiversity from the region of chance 
and mperfection into that of profound adaptation and 
Divine wisdom. As the slight diversities in the two 
pictures of a stereoscope are not accidental and trivial 
errors, but the very elements on which our full conception 
of solidity depends, so this fourfold presentation of the 
life of our Lord combines special adaptation to the 
wants of the Church in its first origin and growth, with 
an harmonious fourfold exhibition of His perfection, who 
is the King, the Shepherd, and the Sympathising High 
Priest, and more than all, the Second Adam, the Lord 
from Heaven. | 

Let us now examine rapidly a few of the main discre 
pancies in detail, and we shall see that they yield, when 
sifted, only deep and latent signs and proofs of unity 
and Divine wisdom. 


62 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


4. The Genealogies. 

The contrast of the two genealogies in St. Matthew 
and St. Luke meets us at the opening of the Gospels. 
It has given rise to a great variety of Christian comments 
and explanations ; and to objections, often repeated and 
raised, on the part of opposers of the faith. The ques- 
tion to be answered is this. Does their contrast prove 
ignorance and error, or is it a reconcilable diversity, 
which gives the strongest evidence of special design, 
guiding and overruling this double record ? 

The true explanation, in spite of all sceptical cavils, 
and the frequentmistakes even of Christian commentators, 
seems to me clear, simple, and decisive, and amounts 
to a moral demonstration. St. Matthew and St. Luke 
both agree to affirm our Lord’s “ miraculous conception.” 
He was, in popular estimation and in right of legal inherit- 
ance alone, the Son of Joseph. But He was really and 
substantially the Son of Mary, and had no earthly father. 
In common cases a man may have three genealogies. 
The first in precedence and dignity is the paternal, the 
line of his father. ‘The second, which comes next, is the 
maternal, the line of his mother. The third, in some 
cases only, is the adoptive or purely legal, the line of an 
adopted father. By the first and second, natural quali- 
ties may be transmitted. The child inherits the likeness 
only of real parents ; the third does not convey natural 
characters, but legal rights alone. The case of our Lord 
was peculiar and unique. He had.a real mother, but no 
real human father. The paternal and the adoptive line 
were one and the same, and the maternal alone was the 
real line. One was the popular genealogy, and decided 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 63 


His legal right of inheritance in the public eye; but 
the other alone was a true descent, and decided the 
form and true character of the great mystery of the 
incarnation. Thus the genealogy, which usually has 
the first place in dignity and importance, here be- 
comes the second, and the second becomes the first. 
That Joseph should be of the seed of David was es- 
sential, if our Lord was to seem even to outward 
observers, ignorant of the mystery of His birth, to be the 
heir of the promises. That Mary should be of the seed 
of David was essential, that the promise of a Messiah of 
the seed of David might be really fulfilled, and not in 
deceptive appearance alone. The paternal genealogy 
would still be of high importance. It would serve to 
establish the claims of Jesus of Nazareth in the outward 
court of Jewish law and opinion, where the mystery of 
His birth was unknown. ‘The other genealogy would be 
more important still, since on this would rest the fulfil- 
ment of many prophecies, and the real truth of His title 
as the Son of David. 

This contrast, plain to a reflecting mind, explains the 
two sacred genealogies. Both in form belong to Joseph, 
but he could not have two fathers, two strictly paternal 
genealogies. If one is proper, one must be improper, 
that is maternal, conjugal, or adoptive. The proper line 
of Joseph could only give an improper, legal, and 
adoptive line of the Son of Mary. A maternal or othet 
adoptive line of Joseph would be neither a proper nor an 
improper line of Jesus. But the conjugal line of Joseph, 
as the son-in-law of Mary’s father, would be the true - 
line of our Lord’s actual descent. St. Matthew, coming 


ae 


64 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


first, gives the descent by which our Lord would be 


usually recognised by the Jews as the Son of Joseph. — 


For he wrote for Jews, and his genealogy precedes his 
narrative of the incarnation. The term used is one which 
requires strict and real descent, and is-never used of a 
father-in-law or a merely adoptive parent. In the last 
step, then, the imperfection of this genealogy comes to 
light. ‘And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, 
of which Mary was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.” 
In St. Luke the genealogy comes later, at the time of the 
baptism, after the mystery of the miraculous birth has been 
fully unfolded. The descent of Mary and Joseph altke is 
referred to the Davidic family. The name of her unborn 
Son, as the Son of David, is given Him in the same 
message which excludes an earthly father. And the 
connective term throughout the whole list would apply 
equally to a son, a son by adoption, or a son-in-law. In the 
‘Talmudical wwitings, also, Mary is called the daughter of 
Heli. The later Gospel, then, designed for Gentile 
converts, and tracing the line up to Adam, not down from 
Abraham, replaces the legal genealogy of our Lord’s 
putative father by one still more important, that of His 
real mother, on which alone His Davidic descent and 
the mystery of His incarnation in human flesh really 
depend. The minor diversities would detain me too 
long. But I believe that they admit equally of a solution 
which shows the Divine harmony of the narratives and 
their common truth. 

s. The accounts of our Lord’s infancy in the two 


- Gospels have been further charged by Strauss and 


others with direct contradiction. ‘It is impossible,” he 


ee 


Zo the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 6 5 


states boldly, “that both can be true, and one must 
necessarily be false.” St. Luke makes Nazareth the 
original residence. But Matthew ii. 22, it is said, “ren- 
ders certain that Matthew did not suppose N azareth, but 
Bethlehem, to have been the original dwelling-place.” 
When he represents Joseph on his return as prevented 
from going to Judea solely by his fear of Archelaus, he 
ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that pro- 
vince, unaccountable if ‘the affair of the Census alone 
had taken him to Bethlehem, and which is only to be 
explained by the supposition he had formerly dwelt there. 

This objection, made with a confidence truly amazing, 
will be found on examination, as is often the case, to 
change sides and become a strong evidence for the truth 
of the sacred history. It is here assumed that the good- 
will of a Jewish carpenter’s business in a Galilean 
village, away: from the traditional home of his family, 
would be an attraction of such extreme force, that no 
providential changes, however surprising; no angelic 
visions and messages, no hopes of honour and royalty 
for the new-born son, whose birth itself was a miracle 
unique and unexampled, could possibly break the spell, or 
everinduce Joseph to prefer the birthplace of Jewishroyalty 
to the despised and ill-famed Galilean village. But what 
notion could be more unreasonable and preposterous ? 
Are working carpenters so immovable from place to 
place in our own days? Once assume the reality 
of the main facts recorded, and their effect on the 
minds of Joseph and Mary might be foreseen with 
certainty, had the Gospel been silent, and the least 
knowledge of human nature might have made it plain, 

5 


66 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


even to the dull eyes of a dreaming speculator and 
recluse. ‘They had been brought to Bethlehem unex- 
pectedly, at the very time when the promised child was 
born. An angel had announced His royal honours. Wise 
men from the east had laid royal gifts at His feet. Jerusa- 
lem had been stirred by the tidings, and Herod’s fears 
awakened by the tidings of a rival who was destined 
to succeed’ to David’s throne. The words in the 
message to the Virgin had _ received repeated 
pledges and signs of their truth. What place. could 
be so fit and natural as David’s home for the 
training and dwelling place of his heir and successor, 
till the way should be open for His assuming His rightful 
honours? All the indications of the present, the memories 
of the past, and the hopes ofa near future would conspire 
to impress the parents with the thought that here surely, 
in the city of David, to which the Roman decree had 
brought them, where eastern sages had been guided to 
come and worship, and where a prophecy, newly repeated. 
- to Herod, had fixed Messiah’s origin, was the night and 
fitting place for the great work of educating for His 
promised dignity the Son who ‘had just been born. 
The idea that Joseph would of course, on his return 
from Egypt, have gone back to Nazareth to recover 
his tools, or, to revive his suspended business as a 
carpenter, and forsake his ancestral seat, the seat 
of royal ancestors, and the birthplace of the coming 
King, is worthy of a dreamy pedant, steeped in the 
spirit of doubting and self-conceit, but unworthy of a 
reasonable man. What is said to be a necessary proof 
of falsehood is a clear sign of consistency and truth. 


The Evangelist does not pause to explain what explains’ 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 67 


itself, when all the facts are thoroughly considered. The 
seeming contrast of the two Gospels, when the transition 
in the minds of Joseph and Mary would follow so 
naturally and inevitably from the wonders recorded, and 
the hopes to which they must have led, is really a 
powerful indirect evidence of their common truth. ‘The 
writers, it has been well said, “‘were too well aware of 
their agreement and consistency to be afraid of the 
effect of apparent collision. They neither apprehended 
it themselves, nor feared that it would be objected to 
them by others.” 

6. The main scene and locality of our Lord’s public 
ministry is the next principal subject, on which seeming 
contrast and disagreement turns, on further search, into 
a remarkable harmony of statement. ‘The three first 
Gospels agree to place our Lord’s ministry in Galilee. 
They begin, after His baptism, by speaking of His removal 
from Nazareth to Capernaum. And after this all the 
local allusions are Galilean, down to the last week, when: 
che passage through Judea and the entry into Jerusalem, 
were followed by the crucifixion. The places named in 
St. Matthew are successively, Capernaum, Galilee and 
Decapolis, Capernaum, the Sea of Galilee, the Gergesenes, 
Chorazin and Bethsaida, the sea side, Nazareth, a desert 
place near the sea, Gennesaret, the coasts of Tyre and 
Sidon, the sea of Galilee again, the coasts of Magdala, 
Czsarea Philippi, Galilee once more, and the coasts of 
Judea beyond Jordan. In St. Mark nearly the same, 
with one added miracle in Decapolis, and oneat Bethsaida, 
‘In St. Luke, wehave Nazareth, Capernaum, Gennesaret, the 
wilderness, Capernaum, Nain, the land of the Gadarenes, 


68 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


Bethsaida, Chorazin, the midst of Samaria and Galilee, and 
Jericho. The disciples are identified by their Galilean 
dialect. And in the Book of Acts the same feature 1S 
conspicuous on the question at the day of Pentecost, 
“ Are not all these which speak Galileans.” 

Put here an objection will arise. For our Lord is 
described as saying before His death——“ O Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem ! how often would I have gathered thy chil- 
dren, and ye would not!” The complaint is given, at 
different times, both by St. Matthew and St. Luke: ,¥et 
strange to say, in all the three first Gospels we have no 
single line to show that this complaint was true, or that 
such attempts had ever been made. 

When we turn to St. John, in its almost entire diversity 
of materials, its wholly supplemental character, we have 
a key by which the perplexity is entirely removed. ‘This 
Gospel speaks scarcely at all of the Galilean ministry. Its 
~ontents belong, with one exception, to the successive visits 
our Lord paid to Jerusalem. The first of these is recorded 
in ch. ii. at the first Passover, and was followed by a stay 
of some weeks in Judea, before the opening of the 
Galilean ministry. ‘The second was the visit when the - 
impotent man was healed, at a feast of the Jews, which 
was probably the second Passover. At the third Pass- 
over, from the malice of the Jews, which then en- 
dangered our Saviour’s life, no visit was paid to the 
metropolis, because the time of His sacrifice was 
too remote. Here only one main event in Galilee ‘is 
recorded, shortly before the Passover, and then we 
are told that He went on walking in Galilee, because 
of that murderous malice of the Jews. But then followed, 


to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 60 


in the latter part of that year, two successive visits, one 
at the Feast of Tabernacles, and another at the Feast of 
Dedication. And thus, by comparison, the enigmais solved, 
and the Divine complaint of the Saviour is verified. The 
ministry was mainly Galilean. But its course had been 
intersected by four visits to Jerusalem at the first and 
second Passovers, the third Feast of Tabernacles and of 
Dedication. And it was during a fifth and final visit 
that those sacred words were uttered, of complaint and 
sorrow at their persevering unbelief. 

Other main topics, to which the same truth will fully 
apply, that seeming divergence conceals below its surface 
deep evidence of real consistency and truth, are these: 
the apparent dislocation of separate sayings or miracles, 
the real irregularity of one part of St. Matthew, the rela- 
tion of the Sermon on the Mount to the same or a similar 
discourse in St. Luke, the visits to Nazareth, the call of 
the four apostles, the two miraculous draughts of 
fishes, the celebration of the Last Passover, and the 
narratives of the Resurrection. But each of these would 
almost require a separate lecture, and my time is nearly 
exhausted. I would close with a few remarks upon the 
first alone. 

Whenever it is made an objection to the accuracy of the 
Evangelists that the same, or nearly the same, parable or 
saying or miracle is found in very different parts of the 
narrative, one plain fact seems to be forgotten, or at 
least the weight is not given to it which its importance 
deserves. All the sayings of our Lord, recorded in the 
four Gospels, including every repetition of those 
doubly or trebly recorded, might be spoken deliberately 


10 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 


without undue haste, in much less than the working 
hours of a single day. But our Lord’s public ministry 
lasted three full years, or more than a thousand 
days. None of these were spent in dull inaction or 
total silence. Each of them was filled with its own 
works and words of love. And thus the whole of His 
sacred words, if all alike had been given in their own 
time and place, must have formed a volume nearly a 
thousand fold larger than the collective amount of the 
four Gospels. But His life was one of ceaseless journey- 
ing from town to town, and from village to village. The 
same discourse in substance, even when of considerable 
length, may probably have been delivered to some 
thronging audience ten or twenty times, but varied by 
new insertions and additions, and the omission of some 
parts which were spoken before. In the case of shorter 
sayings, brief parables or maxims of Divine wisdom, 
there is no reason why several of them may not have been 
really uttered, in different places, even hundreds of times. 
There is no presumption, then, when such passages are 
found differently placed in different Gospels, for supposing 
that one or the other has erred wholly in their arrange- 
ment. On the contrary, there may often be traced a 
remarkable suitableness and beauty in some change, 
which occurs in the later repetition, under fresh circum- 
stances, of a saying already uttered. Thus we read in 
St. Matthew at the Mission of the Twelve, “ Are not two 
sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not 
fall on the ground without your Father. But the very 
hairs of your head are all numbered.” In St. Luke, 
apparently much later, after the Mission of the Seventy 


to the Levidences and Lruth of Christianity, 71 


and their return, “‘Are not five sparrows sold for two 
farthings ? and not one of them is forgotten before God. 
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” 
How strangely does the general truth, the care of 
Divine Providence even over events the most minute 
and seemingly insignificant, receive a fresh illustration, 
when our Lord can notice even so slight a change in the 
usual price, at one time or another, at one place or 
another, of the sparrows themselves ! 

I feel how impossible it is, within the limits of a 
lecture, to do justice to a subject so wide as the one on 
which I have offered these remarks. I would hope 
on some other occasion to complete the outline, 
and to throw some new light, which I believe to be 
possible, on the topics I have named, but am compelled 
for the present to pass by. I can only, in closing, ex- 
press my own deep conviction, not lightly formed, but 
the result of careful examination, that the objections 
_ brought against the consistency and truth of the Gospel, 
even those which have sometimes been hastily accepted 
as real by Christians themselves, are due to imperfect, 
superficial study, or hasty and groundless inference 
alone, and that in the great majority of cases ‘they serve 
only to disclose a secret harmony, too deep and full to 
be seen by careless eyes. For if hundreds of years are 
too short a time to trace out all the wonders of God in 
His works, and to discover and unfold those laws which 
order the course of the planets, and govern the currents 
and tides of the ocean, how can we wonder that ditfi- 
culties should meet us at first sight, and only yield 
slowly to patient thought, prayerful inquiry, and intelli- 


"2 The Variations of the Gospels, &e. 


gent comparison of Scripture with Scripture, in that 
Word of God which is more excellent in His sight than 
even all the works of Nature, and of which we read that 
stately description, “ ‘Chou hast’ magnified Thy Word 
above all Thy Name.” 


EEE 


— 


THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 


BY 


B. HARRIS COWPER. 


The Apocrpphal Gospels. 


T is worthy of notice that some writers who seek to 
disparage the four Canonical Gospels ingeniously 
endeavour to exalt the so-called Gospels which are 
Apocryphal. To raise these spurious and third rate 
productions to the level of the genuine Gospels is not all 
that is meant; if it were, the question would soon be 
decided. There is a sinister purpose behind, and that 
is, to pull down the true Gospels by means of the false. 
Now we believe the former are of inestimable value, 
while of the latter we say with Dr. Ellicott, the present 
Bishop of Gloucester: “ Their real demerits, their men- 
dacities, their coarseness, the barbarities of their style, 
and the inconsequence of their narratives, have never 
been excused or condoned. It would be hard to find any 
competent writer in any age of the Church, who has been 
beguiled into saying anything civil or commendatory.’* 
Every word of this will be endorsed by the most accom- 
plished of even sceptical critics, who will admit with M. 
Nicolas, who is not in the ranks of orthodoxy, that “in 
reality, they are all, without exception, infinitely beneath 


* Cambridge Essays for 1856, p. 153. 


76 The Apocryphal Gospels. 


the Canonical Gospels in all respects.”* Such are the 
books we have to deal with now. 

The course pursued by the more skilful opposers of 
the true Gospels is, to confess the want of authenticity, 
authority, veracity, and merit of the Apocryphal Gospels, 
and then to turn round upon us and say, ‘“‘ Your Gospels 
labour under similar defects, and yet the others are as 
ancient, and have been received with similar reverence 
by the Churches!” We, on the contrary, maintain that 
they are not as ancient, and were never of equal autho- 
rity among orthodox Christians. We might demand of 
our adversaries the proof of what they say, but without 
waiting for that, we are ready to disprove it. The two 
classes of books have been carefully investigated, and the 
result is that only folly or fraud can place them on the 
same level. ‘This is true, whether we regard them from 
a critical, an historical, a moral, or a religious point of 
view. Some of these matters I hope to make clear 
before I conclude ; but I must proceed now to say what 
the Apocryphal Gospels are. 

In the introduction to my translation of those which 
exist I have written as follows: ‘Several of these books 
are still extant in one language or another, but of the 
larger part we only possess fragments, or the mere 
titles. I would thus describe in a few words the character 
of the books in question : They are all spurious; they 
all relate to Christ and to those who were associated 
with Him in His earthly career, or to the Apostles and 
their associates ; they all seek to supplement or develop 


* Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes. Pref, p. xxiii. 


? 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 4 


/ 


the writings of the New Testament ; and all that we have 
are of more recent date than any of the Canonical books. 
The series commenced in the second century at latest, 
and continued for many centuries. The materials are 
drawn, partly from the New Testament, partly from tra- 
ditions, and partly from the imagination of their authors. 
They are of no historical or doctrinal authority, and were 
never officially recognised in the Church.” ‘These re- 
marks apply to all the New Testament Apocrypha, and 
therefore to the false Gospels, which alone at present 
concern us. 

I will trouble you with another extract from my book, 
in which I give an explanation of the origin and intention 
of the Apocryphal Gospels, and similar books :— 

“J. The Evangelical narratives were simple and 
meagre in their mode of describing what (1) preceded, 
(2) attended, and (3) followed, the facts with which they 
are mainly concerned. This applies to 

“‘(1), The Family of Christ ; (2), His Infancy ; (3), His 
Inauguration ; (4), His Trial and Crucifixion ; (5), His 
visit to the Underworld; (6), His Resurrection and 
Ascension; (7), His Mother and the Apostles after- 
wards. 

“TJ, The Evangelical narratives were almost or wholly 
silent on various points, 4g. 

(1), Doctrines to be believed, but requiring explana- 
tion ; (2), Certain matters connected with the unseen and 
spiritual world ; and (3), The organisation and discipline _ 
of the Church. | 

“III. Sundry sects, heresies, and parties wanted sup- 
port from Apostolical and Divine authorities. 


78 Lhe Apocryphal Gospels. 


“TV. Men took pleasure in producing religious novels, 
fictions, Hagadoth (a Jewish form of religious fiction), or 
whatever we call them; and they knew such things were 
popular.” 

Let me repeat that “the materials are drawn, partly 
from the New ‘Testament, partly from traditions, and 
partly from the imagination of their authors.” This being 
the case, while we admit that they contain elements 
which are true, we are required to speak of them as 
fictions. They are not all wholly false, and they were not 
all meant to be taken as literal history. A similar prin- 
ciple holds good with other books and works of art. It 
is applicable to the “ Paradise Lost” of Milton, the 
“Pilgrim’s Progress” of Bunyan, and the “Robinson 
Crusoe ”’ of Defoe, to the historical plays of Shakespeare, 
the historical novels of Scott, to Franklin’s “‘ Parable of 
Abraham,” and to the ‘“ Ammergau Passion Play.” It 
applies also to Godfrey Kneller’s picture in Hampton 
Court Palace of “ William III. Landing at Torbay,” to 
David’s painting in the Louvre of “ Napoleon crossing 
the Alps,” and to the “ Shadow of Death” by Holman 
Hunt. ‘These all rest upon a basis of truth, but not one 
of them represent events as they happened. As their 
merits are independent of historical accuracy, so are the 
merits or demerits of the Apocryphal Gospels. 

In some respects certain of the false Gospels cannot be 
compared with the works I have enumerated; I mean 
those which were written in the interests of heresy or of 
superstition. That some were so written is matter of 
history, and that it is true even of a part of those which 
we have in a more or less complete state is apparent to 
every careful student, 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 76 


Very few of the Apocryphal Gospels profess to be in- 
spired, and none have been viewed as such by the Church 
of Christ. Occasionally they refer to our Gospels as of a 
_ more elevated rank, which is an acknowledgment of their 
own inferior pretensions. But when we came to look into 
them and subject them to criticism, we soon begin to see 
how far they are from any just claim to equality with 
our Gospels. Among the phenomena which present 
themselves to our notice are these :—1. The same book is 
often ascribed to different authors. 2. The same book 
appears with different titles. 3. Different books occur 
with the same title. 4. The same book may have dif- 
ferent forms, one much longer than the others. 5. Two or 
three books are sometimes amalgamated into one. 6. 
The various readings are as divergent as they are numer- 
ous, immensely in excess of those which belong to the 
four Gospels, although the latter have been copied a 
hundred times more often to say the least. The negli- 
gence in copying, and the liberties taken in altering in 
every way, prove that these books were not looked upon 
with any veneration as sacred and Divine. 

Now none of these things are true of the genuine 
Gospels, and therefore we may affirm that the eighteen 
centuries which have revered and testified to them have 
trifled with and borne witness against the others. I say 
that eighteen centuries have trifled with the Apocryphal 
Gospels, but I do not mean that we have any so anciertt. 
I believe we have not, although I find things in some of 
them which Irenzeus speaks of as in those of his day, 
seventeen centuries ago. You will, however, carefully 
observe that as these writers copied much from one 


So The Apocryphal Gospels. 


another, similar statements occur in books written at most 
distant intervals. We cannot, therefore, decide the age 
of any one of these Apocrypha by a reference to Irenzeus 
alone. With the genuine Gospels the case is widely dif- 
ferent, and no one who reads them carefully can doubt 
whether they are the same as Irenzus mentions and uses 
somuch. The one truth which we gather from Hippo- 
lytus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and 
Irenzus, is, that the series of spurious Gospels must have 
begun in the second century. Later authors, and the 
very books in our hands, make it plain that the series 
continued during several hundred years; perhaps it 
would not be too much to say they range over a thousand 
years or more. If I included the visions and revelations 
of monks and nuns and devout hypochondriacs, I should 
have to say that the long array of falsehoods extends from 
the second century to the nineteenth. As we must draw 
the line somewhere, I have decided now to consider only 
the anonymous Apocrypha of a few centuries. 

Should I be asked why I call books anonymous which 
bear such well known names as Matthew, Peter, Thomas, 
James, and Nicodemus, I would answer, Because no one 
believes those writers were the authors, and, so faras we 
can tell, no one ever did believe it, unless incompetent. 
How different with our four Gospels! Every man who 
has recorded the writers’ names has ascribed them to 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John! 

With respect to the question of their first origin, I may 
be told that the Apocryphal Gospels must have begun 
before St. Luke wrote, because he says, ‘“‘ Many have 
taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those ° 


The Apocryphal Gospels. ohn 


things which are most surely believed among us.” The 
answer to this is that the Evangelist does not say one 
word of the fabulous character of the books he refers to ; 
and from this I infer that they were honest, but unsatis- 
factory attempts to write the Gospel history.. Whatever 
they were they passed at once into oblivion, and we have 
not a trace of a record of them afterwards. JI amsureno 
one will believe in the ludicrous list of twenty-six Gospels 
referred to in the New Testament, as drawn up by Robert 
Taylor and printed at p. 75 of his ‘‘Syntagma.” ‘The 
utter untrustworthiness of this writer is now so well-known 
and admitted that no intelligent and candid unbeliever 
places any reliance upon him. Him, therefore, I dismiss. 
without apology. ; 

I may perhaps be reminded that some Christian writers: 
have understood St. Luke as alluding to Apocryphat: 
Gospels. Iam quite aware of the fact, but have given 
my reason for a different opinion. 

It may be said that several of the earliest Christian 
Fathers mention incidents and sayings not to be found in 
the four Gospels, but once existing in the Apocryphal. 
The inference is that in these cases Apocryphal Gospels 
were quoted. I am again of a different opinion, and after 
minute examination conclude that such incidents and 
sayings in all human probability belong to tradition. The 
compilers of false Gospels naturally embodied such facts 
and words in their books. | 

If it is alleged that several of the fathers, such as 
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, avowedly 
quote from false Gospels, it need not be denied ; but it 
must be observed that they do not appeal to them with- 

©) 


82 The Apocryphal Gospels. 


-out reservation and explanation. These very quotations 
therefore supply historical proof that such Gospels were 
not accounted Canonical and genuine. 

Leaving the question of antiquity for the present, let us 
‘look at that of authority. This is partly answered by a 
‘remark already made, on the way in which the early 
Fathers quote the Apocryphal Gospels. But it may be 
urged that at least one church, that of Rhossus in Cilicia, 
adopted a false Gospel, and that other examples might 
possibly be traced. It may be so, but the exception 
proves the rule, which is all I have need to establish. 
Even in the case of Rhossus an enquiry was at one insti- 
tuted, and the true character of the spurious Gospel was 
made known. 

The fact that the Se eat Gospels were drawn upon 
in after times, and their legends foisted into so-called 
histories and into liturgical works is no argument against 
my position, because the books which were borrowed 
{rom had already been declared Apocryphal by name in 
the decrees of councils or of Popes. The books them- 
selves having been condemned, it is for those who 
plundered ‘them to justify their thefts ; I do not undertake 
to do so. If there are saints in the calendar and stories 
in the Breviary which come from the Apocryphal Gospels, 
it is a discredit to those who have adcpted them without 
acknowledging, and even while condemning the parentage. 

One curious fact connected with some of the Apocry- 
phal Gospels must not be overlooked. Maurice, the 
author of “ Indian Antiquities,” wrote a book called “ The 

Indian Sceptic Confuted, and Brahmin Frauds Exposed,”’* 


* London, 1812. 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 83 


in which he directs attention to the existence of certain 
of these productions in India, among the ancient Chris- 
tians established there. He undertakes to prove that 
these false Gospels were used by the Brahmins, who 
compiled the famous legends of Krishna. His arguments 
were highly commended by such men as Dean Vincent 
and Adam Clarke, and they are certainly every way 
worthy of attention. At an earlier date Sir William 
Jones, in his well known essay on the “ Gods of Greece, 
Italy and India,” expressed a similar opinion. He says, 
when speaking of the Krishna fables, “This motley story 
must induce an opinion that the spurious Gospels, which 
abounded in the first age of Christianity, had been 
brought to India, and the wildest parts of them repeated 
to the Hindus, who ingrafted them on the old fable of 
Cesava, the Apollo of Greece.” Cesava is another name 
for Krishna, and hence we may infer, not only that the 
Krishna story as we have it is less ancient than our 
Gospels, but is indebted to those very Apocryphal 
Gospels which we have under our notice. 

I will now mention the amusing: shifts to which re- 
course has been had by some who have wished to make 
the unlearned believe that.the Apocryphal Gospels were 
used in common with our own. According to one story 
the selection of Canonical books was made by the vote 
of a council of bishops ; while another is that the selection 
was ascribed to some sort of miracle. The latter is an 
exceedingly silly fable; yet very often printed. It even 
appears in the second of the tracts bearing the title, 
“Christian Evidences Criticised: being the National 
Secular Society’s Reply to the Bishop of London, and the 


e The A pocryphal Gospels. 


A 
“Ti 


Christian Evidence Committee.” The writer has got 


hold of the idea that the Canon of the New Testament 


was formed by the process of “ selection,” and after speak- 
ing of the uncertainty of the “me when this supposed 
‘selection ” was made, he proceeds to say: ‘‘ Equally 
uncertain is history as to the mode of selection. Some 
writers mention that when the bishops met to decide 
what should be the word of God, the books were 
put to the vote of the meeting, and those Gospels and 
Epistles which had the majority of votes, were regarded 
as ‘Divine.’ By other writers it is stated that the bishops 
put the whole of the books under the table, and besought 
those that were inspired to leap on the top, and it hap- 
pened accordingly. To believe this, however, would re- 
quire a leap of the imagination. What became of the 
rejected books we know not. The Apocryphal New 
Testament contains some of them, but there are many 
of which we have no trace.” 

Here we have the two untrue accounts—/jrs¢, that the 
“selection” was made by a vote of bishops at some 
council, which is not named ; and secondly, that the anony- 
mous council obtained a decision by a miracle. We are 
told that “some writers” give one account, and “ other 
writers” the other. The ‘some writers” in the one case 
are none of them named, and the ‘ other writers” are 
equally nameless. Let me supply the deficiency by 
observing that Thomas Paine tells the first story, and 
that William Hone, who recanted his scepticism, tells the 
second, as you will find by referring to ‘The Age of 
Reason,” and “ The Apocryphal New Testament.” Such 
are the allegations, and what are the facts? 


a 


The Apocryphal Gospels. | Sr 


1. That there is absolutely no genuine record or docu- 
ment, and no modern writer of note, to show that either 
the Council of Nice in 325 a.p., or that of Laodicea a 
few years later, and one of them must be meant, selected 
the Canonical books of the New Testament by a majority 
of votes against the Apocryphal ones. There is an 
ancient list of New Testament books which it is said was 
drawn up at Laodicea, but nothing about the false and 
spurious books. Besides, we have plenty of evidence 
that the New Testament in a collected form existed ages 
before this, and that it did not contain any Apocryphal 
Gospels. 

2. The tale about the miraculous selection of the books 
which we receive seems to have been unknown for at 
least from five to six hundred years after its supposed 
occurrence. Jam ashamed to feel called upon to give 
its history, but the obstinacy with which sceptics of a cer- 
tain class continue to publish it on the platform and 
through the press renders it a duty. The pretended fact 
is taken from a book called “ Libellus Synodicus,” which 
was first published by a Strasburg professor named Pap- 
pus in the year 1601, and in Greek and Latin. It is said 
by the Abbé Bergier to have been written at the earliest 


in the ninth century, “by an unknown and visionary 


author.” ‘“Itis,” he adds, ‘‘a work full of errors, anachron- 
isms and fables, and despised by all critics, not one of 
whom has ever made use of it.”* M. Bergier mentions 
that by some sceptical writers of his time the fable by the 
unknown Greek had béen produced with variations. The 


* Traité de la Vraie Religion, Vol. VIII., p. 127. Paris, 1785. 


— 86 The Apocryphal Gospels. 


author of the “ Critical History of Jesus Christ,” of which 
I have a copy in French without date, or name of place 
of publication,* says the inspired books got upon the 
altar. Another version is that the books were all placed 
upon the altar and that the Apocrypha fell off, while the 
inspired books remained. A third account is that the 
altar was artificially contrived to bring about the desired 
result. 

This is the history of the matter. Until the time of 
Pappus the story was not even published, and it was not 
repeated until the French infidels got hold of it a century 
ago, or very little more. They did not believe it and no- 
body else believed it. Why then do our opponents make 
so much of it, as if it was any part of true and really 
ancient history? Is it because they are prejudiced men, 
who will not or cannot investigate the truth of what they 
say? 

I will ask you diligently to note what I am about to 
say further in reference to the fable published by Pappus. 
The men who so often mention it without accepting its 
truth practically accept it as supplying a date when Apo- 
cryphal Gospels were finally excluded from all claim to 
authority by the adoption of our four. From this it follows, 
first, that the Canonical Gospels have held their place 
and stood supreme for fifteen centuries anda half. It 
follows, secondly, thatno Apocryphal Gospel written since 
the Nicene or Laodicean Councils can have had any claim 
to a place in the Canon. ‘Therefore all Apocryphal Gos- 
pels which have appeared since the Councils mentioned 


* It appeared in French about 1770. 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 87 


are confessedly excluded from all the honours which un- 
believing writers have claimed for those written at an 
earlier date. This is a logical conclusion to which no 
reasonable man can object; and it suggests that we should 
find out the dates at which the Apocryphal Gospels first 
appear or were written. Every false-Gospel which cannot 
be traced to an earlier date than the Nicene Council is 
rejected by the arguments of the Infidels themselves. 

Another most important consequence follows, and it is 
that if at any earlier date than a.D. 325 we find our four 
Gospels only accepted as Canonical, all Apocryphal Gos- 
pels not older than that earlier date must be rejected. 
Whenever, no matter when, our Gospels were regarded 
as alone Canonical all other Gospels must have been un- 
canonical. Hence all we have to do is to find out who 
first mentions four Gospels as alone received, and then 
to discover what other so-called Gospels existed at an 
earlier date because they only can have claimed to be 
Canonical. To follow this course will very much simplify 
our enquiry, and its results will settle the question. 

One hundred years before the Council of Nicea we find 
Origen writing in his Commentaries on Matthew: “I 
have learnt by tradition concerning the fowr Gospels 
which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God 
spread under heaven, that that according to Matthew, 
who was once a publican but afterwards an Apostle of 
Jesus Christ, was written first ; ...that according to Mark 
second ; ...that according to Luke third: ...that accord- 
ing to John last of all.”* 


* As quoted by Westcott on the Canon, Part II., from Eusebius, 
Ecclesiastical History, 6, 25. 


88 The Apocryphal Gospels. 


Tertullian, who was born about 130 years after the 
death of Christ, in his writing against Marcion* enumerates 
_ four Gospels only as genuine and ascribes them to 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

Clement of Alexandria, who belongs to the same period, 
speaks of “the four Gospels which have been delivered to 
Uist 

Irenzeus of Lyons, who wrote still earlier, reckons four 
Gospels as alone accepted by the universal Church of 
God.t 

For the purposes of this lecture I need not go further 
with the present branch of our enquiry. We have the 
evidence of four of the most eminent Christian writers of 
the second part of the second century, and of the first 
part of the third century, that only the four Gospels of 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were then received by 
the Church. These four men represent Europe, Asia, and 
Africa, and had what may be called an immense acquain- 
tance with Christian literature and opinions, orthodox and 
heretical. They all refer to Apocryphal Gospels, but it 
is manifest that such books were excluded by them feu 
the sacred Canon. 

There is still earlier testimony for the four Gospels and 
their place in the Church, but I pass it by, as not belong- 
ing to our actual business. It is enough for me that men, 
some of whom could look back to within a hundred and 
fifty years of the birth of our Saviour, and had conversed 
with other men much older than themselves, knew nothing 


* Book 4, 2. + Stromata, Book 3.- 
t Heresies, Book 3, ch, 11, sec, 8 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 89 


of more than four Gospels as received by the Church, 
although they knew of other so called Gospels in use by 
certain heretical sects, as they carefully indicate. 

Before proceeding to speak of the claims of the false 
Gospels now in existence to be older than the times of 
Tertullian, Clement, and Irenzeus, and before saying any- 
thing of so-called Gospels which were earlier, but are now 
known only by name, by fragments and in other forms, 
I will ask you to compare with the facts already 
established a few statements made by writers with whom 
you are, most of you, familiar. 

In his discussion with Mr. Woodman, Mr. Bradlaugh 
says (p. 32): “I would ask him whether there are not 
many others of the Greek Gospels, some more ancient 
than these, which are abandoned and rejected? If our 
friend says not, I will read overa list of fourteen or fifteen 
Gospels, the names of which have been preserved, and 
some of which have been substantiated as being more 
worthy of credence than some that have been adopted.” 
Hereupon I would say that we know of no Greek Gospels 
more ancient than those of the New Testament, and that 
no Apocryphal Gospel has been substantiated as\more 
worthy of credence than some of the Canonical Gospels. 

The same writer at p. 25 of his tract, “ When were cur 
Gospels written?” gives a list of what he describes as fabu- 
lous histories written not long after Christ’s resurrection, 
Those in the list which are called Gospels are, “the Gospél 
of Peter; the Gospel of Andrew ; the Gospel of John ; 
the Gaspel of James ; ‘the Gospel ai the Egyptians.” Why 
the Gospel of John, which is one of our four, is put down, 
I know not, and some information should have been given. 


go The Apocryphal Gospds. 


respecting the rest. This I know, that not one of the 
false Gospels named by Mr. Bradlaugh is mentioned 
within a hundred and fifty years of the Ascension of 
Christ. That of Peter first appears in notices of Serapion, 
Bishop of Antioch, whom Cave places at a.p. 190. That 
of Andrew first occurs in the decree of Gelasius, A.D. 492 
That of James seems to be mentioned as one with that of 
Peter by Origen, though as a fact the Gospel of James 
does not occur under that title in any of the ancient 
Fathers. The Gospel of, or according to, the Egyptians 
is referred to by Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the 
second century. 

A sceptic of a very different class, Dr. Perfitt, says the 
modern reader “‘hears of the facf that about the close of 
the second century various Gospels. were known and 
highly esteemed, which are no longer accepted by the 
Churches ; he finds that these rejected works were quoted 
-in common with those received by the Fathers who are 
still praised alike by Catholic and Protestant believers,” 
&c. This is an exaggerated statement, and consequently 
mischievous. We learn from Irenzeus, that some of the 
extreme heretics had certain books which they had 
forged, and we get similar evidence from some later 
writers, but these books were not highly esteemed by the 
Churches, neither were they quoted in common with ours 
by Fathers injhigh repute. How, and how far they are 
quoted, will be duly stated as we proceed. 

I cannot allude without a feeling of shame to p. 33 of 
‘Our First Century,’—one of the tracts issued by 


Thomas Scott. The writer professes to gather together 


the principal incidents in the life of Jesus, according as 


The Apocrypiai Gaspels. gt 


they are related in the various extant New Testament 
writings. Under this designation he quotes most from 
the Apocryphal Gospels, an act which no upright and 
intelligent man can fail to condemn, because no explana- 
tion whatever is offered. True, he elsewhere says, (p. 18), 
‘“The extant Apocryphal New Testament literature is 
almost universally admitted to be a production of the 
second century,” but even this is grossly inaccurate. 

I must next mention Dr. Giles as one who has dealt 
unfairly with this matter in his “Christian Records.” 
He gives six instances in which he says Justin Martyr 
“quoted sayings of Christ or events of Christ’s life which 
do not occur in our Gospels, but were found in other 
uncanonical writings.” For his first and second examples 
which are trivial, he offers no proof; and all he can say 
for his third is, that ‘“Grotius and others ¢Azk that it is 
taken from the Gospel according to the Egyptians.” For 
his other three he does refer to Apocryphal books, but 
most of them do not appear till long after the time of 
Justin. 

Among the boldest transgressors of accuracy I have 
met with is Mr. E. P. Meredith, who in his “ Prophet of 
Nazareth” says, at p. 306, that the Gospels which are 
termed Apocryphal ‘“‘are supported by ‘quite as strong 
evidence of their genuineness, as can be adduced for 
that of the Canonical Gospels.” He says “there is quite 
as much evidence of the genuineness of the Gospel ‘of 
the Infancy, as there is of that of either of the Canonical 
Gospels. Indeed, we have evidence that it is of higher 
antiquity than either of them; for we have no proof that 
our present Gospels existed in the second century.” Upon 


92 Lhe Apocryphal Gospels. 


the respective items in this quotation, I simply say that, 
in the face of well known evidence, no more untrue 
series of allegations ever came under my notice. Not 
one of the details has the shadow of fact as its founda- . 
tion. , | 

If space permitted I would have set over against 
these too hasty utterances the calm and scholarlike 
views of the most eminent modern critics, who almost 
with one voice declare that the four Gospels were 
accepted as Canonical at a very early date, and do not 
regard the Apocryphal Gospels as having had any such 
position. If a party in Egypt had a peculiar Gospel ; 
if another party in Judea had a peculiar Gospel; if the 
disciples of Basilides and of Marcion had their peculiar 
Gospels during the second century,—the Church as a 
whole had the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
John, and no other. If we may judge by the specimens 
of false Gospels which have come down to us, the Church 
could never have entertained them. The intellectual, the 
moral, and the religious faculties of sober minded Chris- 
tians would have revolted against them; for as the 
“Edinburgh Review” (July 1868) says: “ What strikes 
every one, whatever be his opinion of the origin and 
merits of these writings, is their immeasurable inferiority to 
the Canonical Gospels. ...... An impassable line sepa- 
rates the simple majesty, the lofty moral tone, the pro- 
found wisdom and significance of the Canonical Gospels 
from the qualities which we forbear further to particularise 
in the writings that claim to be their complement.” 

The most important of the few earliest non-canonical 
Gospels of which we find any trace, were more or less 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 93 


o 


aitered copies of those which we have. Thus the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews was a Hebrew or Aramaic 
_ copy, answering generally to that by Matthew. In like 
manner the Gospel of Marcion was only an altered copy 
of that by Luke. It is the opinion of Jeremiah Jones 
_ that six or seven of the early corrupted Gospels, styled 
Apocryphal, were simply modifications of Matthew. Under 
this head he places the so-styled Gospels of the Hebrews, 
of the Nazarenes, the Twelve Apostles, the Ebionites, and 
those of Cerinthus and Bartholomew. Others may 
perhaps come under the same description. We know 
very well that one or two fabulous Gospels about the 
Infancy of Christ have been multiplied by ingenious 
scribes into not less than half a dozen, but probably into 
a larger number. By doggedly pursuing the motley 
crowd of these Apocrypha, until we run them to earth, 
we secure two momentous results : js?, that not a few of 
them are of far more modern date than has been asserted ; 
and secondly, that the remainder become for the most 
part mere a/iases, leaving a very small number of originals. 
Those which are proved to be too modern, are disposed 
of by the argument of our opponents themselves ; such 
as are merely alterations of our Gospels have no logical 
place in the discussion ; the Gospels of sects and parties 
_ have no right to compete with those of the Canon. If 
there be any others I do not know where to lay my 
hand upon them, nor do I know any one who does. 
What is the conclusion? Why evidently that four 
original Gospels and no more were received by the 
Church in its really early period. All others disappear, 
and, “like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a 
wrack behind.” 


94 Lhe Apocryphal Gospels. 


Taking the sceptical ground, that the first to name a 
Gospel is the first witness for its existence, I turn to Jones 
on the Canon, where the authorities are ranged chrono- 
logically, with the following results :— 

1. Hegesippus (A.D. 173.) contemporary with Irenzeus 
is said to have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
The authority for this is Eusebius, who wrote a hundred 
and fifty years later, and who does not say that Hegesippus 
gave the name of the Gospel in question. No matter 
whether he did or not, there is no doubt that the Gospel 
according to the sahara agreed in the main with our 
Matthew. 

2. Irenzeus, at the close of his first book against 
Heresies, says that the sect called the Cainites had a 
fictitious history, which they styled the Gospel of Judas ; 
z.é., Judas Iscariot the betrayer of Christ. The same 
author mentions, “The Gospel of Truth,” which the 
Valentinians used. He also refers to false Gospels which 
he does not name. 

3. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, about the same time 
wrote against a book called “The Gospel of Peter,” a 
forgery which had been received. by some members of 
the Church of Rhosse, or Rhossus, in Cilicia. 

4. Clement of Alexandria mentions the Gospel sccord: 
ing to the Hebrews, and the Gospel according to the 
Egyptians. 

5- Tertulltan speaks of the Gospel of Valentinus, the 
Gospel of Marcion, and the Gospel of Peter. 

6. Origen has references to the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles, 
the Gospel of Basilides, that of Thomas, that of Matthias, 
and that of Peter or the Book of James. 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 95 


7. Hippolytus, who lived at the same time with Origen, 
also refers to the Gospel of Thomas, but the extracts he 
gives do not appear in the Gospel with that name which 
has come down to our day. 

8. Eusebius, a hundred years later, mentions several 
of the false Gospels above named, and adds the Gospel 
of Tatian, but that was only a Harmony formed out of 
our four Gospels, because he expressly says so, and calls 
it by the name of Diatessaron, which a similar work bears 
to this day. 

These are all the false, falsified, or modified Gospels of 
which the writers of the Church speak down to the time 
of the Council of Nicea—three hundred years after the 
crucifixion of Christ. The total is thirteen, from which 
we must throw out several: the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
based on Matthew; the Gospel of Marcion, based on 
Luke ; the Gospel of Tatian, a collection from our four ; 
and the Book of James, which Origen speaks of as if the 
same with that of Peter. Of the nine which remain, the 
the Gospels of Judas and of Truth appear to have been 
mystical and not historical books, and that of Valentinus 
seems to have been like them. Six only have to be 
accounted for. (1) The Gospel of Peter, which is perhaps 
the same as a book styled the Preaching of Peter, but 
which we know to have been a forgery because Serapion 
declared it such in the time of Irenzeus. (2) The Gospel 

according to the Egyptians, of which Clement of Alex- 
andria speaks, but which he does not accept, and which 
seems to have been a really Apocryphal Gospel, part 
fable and part history. It has perished, which is very 
good proof that it was never Canonical. It was used 


96 The Apocryphal Gospels. 


only by some heretics. (3) The Gospel according to the 
Twelve Apostles, which Origen mentions as used by the 
heretics, and Jerome thinks was another form of our 
Matthew. There is little doubt that it corresponded 
with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (4) The 
Gospel of Basilides, was written by an ancient heretic 
of that name, and as such, whatever its forms, it did not 
appeal to the Church at large. (5) The Gospel of 
Thomas, is mentioned by Origen as received by heretics, 
and is declared by Cyril to have been written by a Mani- 
chean of the name of Thomas. If Cyril is right it could 
not have been so ancient as the Apostolicage. There 
may, however, have been two or more books with that 
title, I think there were, and that the first was as early as 
the days of Irenzeus. The original Gospel of Thomas is 
very likely the basis of those books which we now have 
under that name, but if so it was written to favour the 
Gnostics, and was opposed to the views of the orthodox, 
which shows that it could never have claimed to be 
Canonical. (6) The Gospel of Matthias, which we cannot 
identify with anything we now possess, which Origen says 
was used by the heretics, and which, Eusebius condemns 
as impious and absurd, as well as heretical. 

You will not forget that the first to really mention the 
false Gospels is that same Irenzeus who first names all 
our four, and declares them alone genuine. If you wish 
to get beyond Irenzeus you must adopt the methods we’ 
follow ; you must rely on more modern authors, or upon 
alleged quotations. There is no third course open, and 
the sceptic is driven to uphold the claims of false Gospels 
by the very measures he condemns when used to upheld 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 97 


the true. There are other arguments in support of the 
four Gospels which cannot be employed for the Apocry- 
phal books, but I have not time to enumerate them. 
They relate to the internal character of the books, the 
use made of them by sects, ancient translations, &c. 

Such of the false Gospels as are now extant are con- 
tained in my translation of them,* with a careful account 
of them all. They are as follows :— 

1. The Gospel of James, or Protevangelium, the latter 
title having been given to it by Postelin rss52. It exists in 
Greek and in Latin, and contains an account of the birth, 
education and marriage of Mary, of the birth of Jesus, 
and His being worshipped by the Magi. It probably 
received its actual form in about the fourth century, 
though some of its materials are older. 

2. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, otherwise called 
the Book of the Birth of the Blessed Mary and of the 
Infancy of our Saviour, and sometimes said to have been 
written in Hebrew by the Evangelist Matthew, and trans- 
lated into Latin by Jerome. This book is a compila- 
tion not so ancient as the Gospel of James, but probably 
dating from the fifth century. The original seems to have 
been in Greek and an amplification of older documents. 

3. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. This we have 
in Latin, and as the writer uses Jerome’s translation, it is 
not older than the fifth century. It ends with the birth 
of Jesus. 

4. The Gospel of Thomas, or Gospel of the Infancy of 
Jesus. We have this in several forms, very different from 


* The Apocryphal Gospels, &c. London, 4th Edition, 1874. 
7 


98 The Apocryphal Gospels. 


, each other, and it represents one of the oldest false Gos- 
, pels of which we have any knowledge. It professes to 
' -yecord events in the life of Christ from his fifth year to 
his twelfth. There is no doubt that its origin was here- 
tical, as it represents the infant Saviour in a very unortho- 
_dox light. We do not appear to have the primary form 
of the book, the nearest approach to it being in the Syriac 
text, which I have translated and printed at the end of 
my volume. Three others of different dates are given by 
me in the same work. 

5. The Gospel of the Infancy, from the Arabic. This 
is by no means so ancient in its actual form as some of 
the others. I view it as a compilation from older books 
with large additions by the Arabic editor. It begins 
with the journey to Bethlehem and is continued down to 
the twelfth year of Christ’s age, but ends with a summary 
mention of His life onward until His baptism. 

6. The Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate. 
This consists of two principal parts, which are often 
separated, the first giving an account of the trial, death, 
and burial of Jesus, and the second an account of His 
exploits among the dead. It has no right whatever to 
be called the Acts of Pilate, which is the title of a much 
older and quite different document. What we now have 
exists in several forms, but none of them can be older 
than the end of the fourth century or the commencement 
of the fifth. 

From what has been ssid it will appear that five out of 
the six Apocryphal Gospels now extant relate solely to 
events which terminate with the infancy of Jesus. The 
sixth of them relates to the concluding scenes in the life 


The Apocryphal Gospels. 99 


of Christ and the time during which He lay in the grave. 
Hence it is evident that none of them are in any sense 
the rivals of our Gospels, but are lame attempts to sup- 
plement them by means of imaginary narratives. The 
logical conclusion is that none of them are so ancient as 
our Gospels, the existence and authority of which is im- 
plied by their avoidance of the period of the Saviour’s 
public ministry, the history of which had been already 
written and was recognised as true. 

The false Gospels which have perished were, so far as 
can be ascertained, of three kinds: 1. Such as were, like 
those now existing, endeavours to supplement the 
Canonical Gospels. 2. Such as were of a mystical and 
allegorical description, abounding in Gnostic speculations. 
3. Such as were altered forms of one or another of our 
Gospels. 

This brings us again to the conclusion that none of 
the Apocryphal Gospels were so ancient as Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, and John ; that few of them ever pretended 
to rival these in authority, and when they did, that it 
was only within the limits of sects which departed 
widely from the common faith. Finally it follows, that 
no known Apocryphal Gospel, whether extant or not, 
can claim to be a genuine production of the Apostolic 
age, or of Apostolic men. ‘Thus the only three ques- 
tions of importance which can be raised are settled. 
The Apocryphal Gospels are not genuine, they are 
_ without authority, and they are too modern. 

From a literary point of view the false and true Gospels 
are as different as books well can be. Most of them 
never were Gospels at all in the proper sense of the 


Ico The Apocryphal Gospels. 


word; and those which were so, were paraphrases of our 
four. ‘The language and internal features place them as 
far below ours as can well be imagined. The uncon- 
trolled liberty taken with them by transcribers and 
editors is utterly inconsistent with the idea that they 
were regarded as inspired productions. They have been 
ridiculed and condemned from the first mention of them 
seventeen centuries ago down to our own day. Many 
of them have utterly perished. Their very titles and 
reputed authorship have not been respected, but have 
been changed according to the fancy of those who have 
copied and published them. No competent critic or 
scholar in any age or country has been able to give an 
honest verdict in their favour, although a few rationalistic 
or sceptical writers have been anxious to think well of 
two or three, of which we know next to nothing. I 
decline to accept as judges in such a case such avowed 
partisans of unbelief as have never studied either the 
Apocryphal Gospels or their history. 

When men lke Renan admit that by about the year 
roo A.D. ‘all the books of the New Testament were 
almost_fixed in the form in which we now read them,”* 
it ill becomes those of lesser note to advocate the opinion 
that the Apocryphal Gospels of later dzte were 2 any 
time in practice a part of the New Testament. We 
simply know they were not, and after an exile of so many 
ages, it is not possible for them to gain the title which 
they never had a right to. 

I will conclude with three short extracts from the 


* Vie de Jesus. 13th Edition, Introd. p. 34. 


Lhe Apocryphal Gospels. IOI 


essay Of Bishop Ellicott, one of the best ever written dn 
the subject. Speaking of these Apocryphal Gospels, he 
says :— 

“ Our vital interest in Him of whom they preterd to 
tell us more than the Canonical Scriptures have recorded 
is the real, though it may be hidden, reason why these 
poor figments are read with interest, even while they are 
despised” (p. 156.) ‘‘ We know before we read them that 
they are weak, silly, and profitless ; that they are despicable 
monuments of religious fiction, yetstill the secret conviction 
buoys us up, that perchance they may contain a few traces 
of time-honoured traditions—some faint, feeble glimpses 
of that blessed childhood, that pensive and secluded 
youth, over which in passive moments, we muse with such 
irrepressible longing to know more—such deep, deep 
desideration ”” (p. 157). ‘If they do not deserve to be 
known for their own sakes, they still involve several 
singular and interesting questions ; they illustrate some 
curious phases of early Christian thought and feeling ; 
they throw some light on ancient traditions, and certainly 
have not been without influence on ancient and medieval 
art” (p. 158). The writer might have added that they 
have been very useful to the forgers of ecclesiastical 
fictions and superstitions, but have never promoted the 
true interests of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ. 


é 


APPENDIX. 


I HAVE hot in this Lecture dealt with every one of the documents 
which are included in my volume of Apocryphal Gospels. The 
reason for this is, that I have inserted in that volume, not only the 
extant false Gospels, but, as the title says, “other documents 
relating to the History of Christ.” Those which are not mentioned 
‘in the Lecture are— 

The History of Joseph the Carpenter; the Letters ascribed to 
Jesus, Abgar, and Lentulus; the Prayer of Jesus; the Story of 
Veronica ; the Letters ascribed to Pilate and Herod; the Report of 
Pilate; the Trial and Condemnation of Pilate; the Death of 
Pilate ; the Story of Joseph of Arimathea ; and the Revenging of 
the Saviour. 

Of the fictitious Gospels, it will be remembered that they fall 
into two classes:—(1) Those which end with the early years of our 
Saviour, and (2) those which begin with his trial and condemnation. 
We have no knowledge of any false Gospels, properly so called, 
which record the events of the ministry of Christ. The falsified 
Gospels which relate to his active ministry appear to have all been 
modifications, or corrupted forms of one or another of our four. 
Of purely mystical or allegorical Gospels we know little, and need 
say nothing. 

It has been thought desirable to supplement the foregoing Lecture 
by an outline of some one of each of the two extant classes of 
Apocryphal Gospels. As those of each class contain so much in 
common, a sample of each will be sufficient to show what sort of 
materials they are made up of. For the first I select the false 
Gospel of Matthew, and for the second I take one form of the 
Gospel of Nicodemus. 


Appendix. | 103 


The False Gospel of Matthew, or Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, com- 
mences with an account of one Joachim, of the tribe of Judah and 
the city of Jerusalem, who was a shepherd, and married one Anna, 
with whom he lived twenty years without having a family. They 
were both very pious, and grieved over their childless lot, when a 
promise of offspring was given by an angel to Anna, and a like 
promise to Joachim, who was then absent from home. These 
promises were fulfilled in the birth of Mary, who at three years of 
age was consecrated to God, and was brought up in the temple till 
she was fifteen years old, when it was thought she should be married. 
The choice of a husband was decided by lot, and the lot fell upon 
Joseph, who was an old man, and had sons and grandchildren, 
Joseph was reluctant to take her, but consented to keep her till he 
knew which of his sons might have her to wife. Mary soon 
received messages from angels announcing the great honours in 
store for her, and after a time Joseph was distressed in finding her 
pregnant. The news spread, and Joseph was taken before the 
Chief Priest and subjected to an ordeal along with Mary, but both 
came out free from blame. . 

Soon after, the taxing was ordered by Augustus, and Joseph and 
Mary had to go to Bethlehem; but before they reached that place 
Mary was overtaken by the pains of childbirth, and entered a cave 
which was divinely illuminated. While Joseph went to seek assist- 
ance Jesus was born, and on Joseph’s return with two women, 
Zelomi and Salome, the last had her hand wit heredas a punishment 
of unbelief, but was cured by touching the border of the infant’s 
clothes. After a reference to the shepherds, and a star which shone 
over the cave, we read that on the third day Mary left the cave and 
went into a stable with the babe, where the ox and ass adored him. 
On the sixth day they entered Bethlehem, and on the eighth the 
child was circumcised, and Simeon and Anna worship Jesus in the 
temple. Two years later the Magi come from the East, Herod is 
enraged, and the flight into Egypt follows to escape from the death 
intended. The family enter a cave where dragons are seen, but 
they adore Jesus and leave him. Lions and leopards in the wilder- 
ness form a sort of reverential body guard and guide. After three 
days Mary longed for the fruit of a palm tree, and at the bidding of 


1o4 Appendix, 


her infant it bowed down till all its fruit was gathered, a spring 
cushed from its.roots, and an angel took one of the branches to 
plant in paradise. The journey being wearisome, Jesus miracu- 
lously shortened it, so that they found Egypt at once before their 
eyes. Entering Hermopolis they were refused hospitality, so 
entered a temple where three hundred and fifty-five idols were, and 
straightway these idols all fell to the ground and were broken. All 
the people of the city believed in the Lord God through Jesus Christ. 

After returning from Egypt and being in Galilee, Jesus, now 
four years old, played by the Jordan, and collected water in pools 
with mud banks. A boy broke down the pools, and Jesus cursed 
him and he died, but on entreaty and with a kick restored him to 
life. Another day he made sparrows of mud, and when complaint 
was made that it was the Sabbath, he clapped his hands and bade 
the birds fly away, which they did. A second boy who broke 
down the pools was stricken with death. Joseph being afraid, took | 
Jesus away to lead him home. As they went, a rude boy pushed 
against him and at once died. After entreaty, Jesus pulled this boy 
up by the ear and bade him live, which he did. 

Some time after one Zaccheus wanted to teach Jesus, but the : 
child quite confounded him with his speeches. However, a second 
application was made, and the pupil was intractable, so the master 
hit him with a stick, which brought from him another of his 
wonderful speeches. The family then removed to Nazareth, where, 
while playing on a house top with Jesus, a boy fell down and died, 
but was raised to life by Jesus. After this he was sent to the 
fountain for water, being now six years old, and on the way back a 
child thrust against him and broke the pitcher, so Jesus spread out 
his cloak and took home in it as much water as there was in the 
pitcher. Again. he sowed a little wheat, which multiplied im- 
mensely. At eight years of age, near Jericho, he entered a cavern 
where there was a lioness and her whelps. The old lion fawned 
on him and adored him, and the young ones fawned and played 
with him. He then crossed the Jordan with the lions, the river 
dividing to let him and‘them go over, and he dismissed them. 
Joseph being a carpenter received one day an order for a couch, and 
told Jesus to cut the wood, which he did, but cut one piece too 


— Appendix. T05 


short, which made Joseph angry. So Jesus made him take the two 
pieces, and they pulled the short one to the proper length. A 
second time he went to school, and the master struck him and died. 
A third time he went to school, and his sayings so amazed them 
that they worshipped him. 

After these things the family removed to Capernaum, where he 
raised a dead man to life. Then they went to Bethlehem, where he 
cured the hand of James, which a viper had bitten. The whole 
concludes with a family sketch, indicating the reverence with which 
Jesus was regarded. 

Lhe Gospel of Nicodemus opens with a preface declaring that one 
Ananias had found the book in Hebrew, and translated it into 
Greek about A.D. 440, Then follows the accusation which the 
Jewish priests and others laid against Jesus before Pilate, who 
gave orders that Jesus should be brought. The officer who went 
to fetch him no sooner saw him than he worshipped him, and spread 
a scarf on the ground for him to walk on, but returned without 
him. Being sent again the officer did as before, and when Jesus 
entered, the tops of the imperial standards bowed to Jesus. This it 
was alleged was a trick of the men who held the standards, so 
others were chosen by the Jews themselves, with no better result. 
Pilate was troubled by this, and by a message from his wife who 
had had a strange dream. However, the trial proceeded, and 
charges were adduced, though witnesses proved them false. Eventu- 
ally Pilate partly consents to his death, whereupon Nicodemus, 
followed by various others, bear testimony in his favour. Several 
details succeed, which are based upon the Gospel record, and Jesus is 
at last crucified and buried. Joseph of Arimathea is caught by the 
Jews and imprisoned. The report of the resurrection of Jesus is 
accompanied by the announcement that Joseph had been miracu- 
lously set at liberty. Sundry confirmations of these events, and 
discussions are introduced. Search is made for Joseph, who gives 
the story of his deliverance. Evidence is obtained of the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, and of his ascension. A wonderful impression in 
favour of Christ is produced, so that even Annas and Caiaphas seem 
to be convinced. Amid general demonstrations of joy, the first 
part of Nicodemus is brought to a close, 


106 Appendix. 


The second part begins with an intimation that of those whom 
Jesus had raised from the dead, the two sons of Simeon were living, 
and might perhaps be brought to narrate what they knew. The 
two men were accordingly sent for, and having made the sign of the 
cross and asked for pen, ink, and paper, sat down and wrote their 
story. They were in the underworld, or Hades, they said, among 
the departed, when there appeared a great light causing great com- 
motion. Abraham, Isaiah, and John the Baptist point out the true 
reason, and Adam calls on his own son Seth to tell the story of the 
oil of mercy. Meanwhile Satan is in consternation, and holds an 
animated conversation with Hades, which is disturbed by the 
approach of Jesus, whom Hades is compelled, much against his 
will, to admit. Hades owns himself subdued, and the King of 
Glory orders Satan to be bound in irons and placed in charge of 
‘Hades. Jesus calls Adam and blesses him, and removes him from 
Hades with patriarchs, prophets, martyrs, and ancestors, who are 
taken to Paradise, where they meet Enoch and Elijah, and soon 
after the repentant thief. All this the two brothers saw and heard, 
and were appointed to make known. Having handed their papers 
to the chief priests, and to Joseph and Nicodemus, they vanished. 
With their disappearance the whole story ends. 

It is evident that the so-called false Gospel of Matthew is little 
more than a series of idle and puerile stories, with only just enough 
allusion to the facts of our Gospels to show that the writer or writers 
knew them. The greater portion of the details are mythical and 
legendary, and therefore not at all founded on fact. Taken in con- 
nection with the malevolent character and capricious habits of 
Jesus, they stand in painful contrast with the representations of Him 
which we find in the four Gospels. As the string of fables which 
convey no moral resemble in no literary feature the Evangelical re- 
cords, so the ideal, Christ of the false Gospeller is quite a different 
Christ from that of the New Testament. Even in the narration of 
alleged matters of fact the false Gospel is often not only at variance 
with the true Gospels, but contradicts what we otherwise know to be 
true. The writer of Pseudo-Matthew used older similar books, and 
added to them or altered them as he chose. He never rises to the 
dignity of a historian, and indulges his fancy for the grotesque and 


Appendix. Lo7 


marvellous. He has no critical faculty whatever, and seems to have 
written more to amuse children than to instruct men; unless, indeed, 
he wished to astonish the ignorant, and to propagate erroneous ideas. 
of Christ. If his intentions were harmless, his views were incoherent 
and inconsistent, and he failed to produce even a plausible prelim- 
inary Gospel. What he wrote has probably been altered, but what 
we have is as near any approach to the mythical as can be imagined. 
He jumbles the impossible, the improbable, and the unnatural to- 
gether in such a way that nobody can believe his tale. How 
different from the natural, truthful, and beautiful allusions and 
narrations of the Evangelists. 

The Gospel of Nicodemus was written at different times and by 
different persons. Dr. Lipsius, an eminent German critic, believes 
that it comprises not fewer than five portions of various dates. The 
book he thinks was in substance written between A.D. 326 and 
376, but it received additions and alterations at a much later date. 
The first great division makes free use of the Gospels, and intro- 
duces episodes and developments for the sake of effect. The second 
division is a simple fiction, the author of which allowed his imagi- 
nation perfect liberty. Dr. Lipsius thinks this second part origi- 
nated with the Gnostics in the third century, but its present form 
is not older than the latter part of the fourth century, after which 
it was adopted and moulded up with the other. It is needless to 
criticise it further, though it should be said that both divisions, 
with all their faults, are superior to the other Apocryphal Gospels. 
From the summary it will be seen that the object in view has been 
to produce a sort of supplement to the Gospels. 

The attempts to concoct preliminary and supplementary Gospels 
are easily accounted for, one chief reason being the desire to be 
wise above what is written. The desire for such wisdom has led 
to the invention of these idle tales, as most of them truly are. The 
solemn simplicity and earnestness of purpose which the Canonical 
Gospels exemplify, will for ever as it heretofore has done, keep 
them at an immeasurable elevation above these poor rivals and 
helpers. The mythical spirit is a childish spirit, and its fruits are 
puerility. It cannot hope to win even literary respectability. But 
the spirit of the Gospel writers is pure and noble, and with literary 


ee a, 


108 Appendix. 


honour, combines. moral and spiritual power. Of moral and 
spiritual power the false Gospels are utterly destitute, because they 
fail to appreciate and exhibit the true and living Christ. Having 
neither intellectual, moral, nor spiritual vitality, none can wonder 
at the discredit under which they have existed. That they have 
existed, any of them at all until now, has been due partly to the 
curiosity which they have awakened, and perhaps a little to their 
vain promise to tell us a few facts about our Saviour and not in 
the four Canenical Gospels. 


. THE EVIDENTIAL VALUR OF THE EARLY 
_ EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL VIEWED AS HIS. 
TORICAL DOCUMENTS. | 


BY THE 


REV. PROFESSOR LORIMER, D.D., 


Professor of Theology in the English Presbyterian College, London. 


\ 


- 


The Evidential Value of the Earlp 
Epistles of St, Paul 
biewed as Historical Documents. 


oe early Epistles of St. Paul include two Epistles 

to the Thessalonians, two to the Corinthians, the 
Epistle to the Galatians, and the Epistle to the Romans. 
They are the oldest writings in the New Testament. 
They were all written between twenty-five and thirty 
years after the death of Christ, and have the remarkable 
distinction of being the earliest literary monuments of any 
kind, or from any source, or in any language, relating to 
Christianity and the Christian Church which have come 
down to us, without challenge from almost any quarter, 
from ancient times. 

You will allow me to start with these statements with- 
out proof, for there is nobody now or hardly anybody 
who denies them. The genuineness of the last four of 
these Epistles is now conceded by all eminent scholars 
and critics, even by Strauss and Rénan themselves ; and 
though Baur and a few of his disciples had something 
to say against the genuineness of the Epistles to the 
Thessalonians, we may take it as good proof that there 


112. Lhe Lvidential Value of the Early Epistles 


was very little force in their objections when they are all 
set aside by such critics of our own as Prof. Jowett and 
Dr. Davidson, who are in no way characterised by a 
conservative or traditional style of criticism, but very 
much the reverse. ‘The least conservative of the two is 
Dr. Davidson who, in the later and more rationalistic 
edition of his “Introduction to the New Testament,” 
remarks that “the established authorship of these two 
Epistles will hold its place among critics notwithstanding 
the assaults it has encountered.” 

I propose to handle these early Epistles of St. Paul 
simply as historical documents—simply as I would make 
use of the Epistles of Cicero or Pliny, or the Letters and 
Despatches of Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington. I 
have nothing to say at present on the subject of their 
Inspiration or Divine Authority. 

I am to treat of their Zvidential Value as historical 
documents. By that I mean their value as attestations to 
the truth of Christiantty—as vouchers especially for the 
authenticity and certainty of the earliest Christian history, 
at least in its chief outlines, as given in the four Gospels 
and the Acts of the Apostles. As attestations and vouchers 
of historical facts, no documents are more valuable than 
the original letters of the personages who were the chief 
actors in history. Hence the diligence and care with 
which the original correspondence of such persons is 
preserved, collected and edited, and published to the 
world. And if this is admitted by all as a general prin- 
ciple of historical criticism, how can it be denied in 
reference to Christian history? Was not St. Paul a chief 
actor in the earliest history of the Christian Church ? 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 113 


And why should not his original letters have the same 
primary authority in that field of inquiry as the original 
letters of any other historical personage in any other 
field ? 

There are three great subjects of Christian history on 
which the early Epistles of St. Paul can thus be brought 
evidentially to bear. 

The first of these is the life and history of Jesus 
Christ Himself, the Author and Finisher of the Christian 
faith. Distinguish between the great historical outlines 
of that life and the minute details of word, deed and 
incident with which the four written Gospels fill up the 
outlines. It is not pretended that more than the outline- 
facts of the life are to be found in these Epistles ; they 
contain or imply none of the details, or very few of them. 
But it is of great evidential importance that they clearly 
recite and everywhere imply the outline-facts, in which 
I include the advent of Christ, His public ministry 
in Judea, His crucifixion, His ascension, and His in- 
auguration of the Pentecostal Church. ‘This proves un- 
answerably that at least these chief Gospel facts were 
known and accepted throughout all the churches of the 
Gentiles, in Asia and Europe, before any of the Gospel 
histories were written. These facts were everywhere 
received as the ultimate historical ground of the Christian | 
Church and the Christian life. Even, therefore, if you 
could destroy the credit of the written Gospels as genuine 
and credible writings of the Apostolic age, you should not 
thereby destroy the truth and reality of the outline 
facts which were everywhere received before them. 
These facts are to be distinguished from all the Gospel 

8 


114 Zhe Lvidential Value of the Early Epistles 


‘narratives, whether Canonical or not, that were after- 
wards written upon the basis of these facts. It was. 
because these foundation-facts were from the first 
accepted as historical verities by all Christians that the 
full and detailed narratives of the life of Christ were after- 
wards composed. Nothing therefore of any real effect is 
done on the side of unbelief, if you merely try to destroy 
the authority of the written Gospels. What unbelievers 
need to achieve is to destroy the credit of the ground- 
facts which were received many years before these narra- 
tives were written. You do not attack the primary 
foundations in attacking the later histories. You do not 
shake the foundations by shaking the histories—even if 
I were to admit, which I do not, that you do shake them 
—and till the very foundations of the edifice are shaken 
and displaced the edifice will stand firm like an impreg- 
nable fortress upon a rock. © 

A second great ibjebe to hioh these Epistles of St. 
Paul apply, in a very authoritative and decisive way, is 

the personal history cf St. Paui himself—a point of early 
’- Christian history inferior only in fundamental importance 
to the history of Christ himself. What better or more 
. authoritative evidence could we have on everything per- 
sonally relating to St. Paul than the genuine Epistles of 
St. Paul himself? If Cicero’s Epistles are of primary 
authority on everything relating to the life of Cicero—for 
instance, as to his home education, the schools in which 
he attained his knowledge of the Greek philosophy, and 
the foreign philosophers from whom he learned the most, 
and whom he valued most—why, I ask, should. not 
Paul’s Epistles be also of primary authority in everything 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 115 


relating personally to St. Paul? As to his education, for 
example, and the various sources or schools, whether in 
Tarsus or Jerusalem, from which he derived his culture 
and knowledge, who could inform us so well and with 
So much authority as Saul of Tarsus himself? And par- 
ticularly as to the sources from which he drew his 
knowledge of Christianity itself; and how it came to 
pass that he who began his public career as a fanatical 
persecutor of the Christians very soon went over with 
his whole soul to the cause which he had persecuted, and 
became, to the equal astonishment of friends and foes, 
its foremost champion—surely St. Paul himself, on all 
ordinary principles of historical judgment, is better able 
to give us accurate information than any other man. 
Surely St. Paul himself is more worth listening to on all 
such points of his own biography, and better entitled to 
belief (if you simply allow that he was an honest man, and 
not a cheat and an impostor) than any critic of the nine- 
teenth century can pretend to be. If I believe Cicero on 
such particulars of his personal history with entire reliance, 
why am I not to believe St. Paul on similar points? If 
_ Cicero is of fr¢mary authority on such personal particulars, 
why is St. Paul to be no authority at all? If you would 
not believe Rénan contradicting Cicero on such 
matters, known to none so well as to Cicero himself, why 
should you believe Rénan contradicting St. Paul on 
matters of which he and he only had and could have 
absolute knowledge? Why am I to believe Rénan 
assuring me that the Gospel which St. Paul began to 
preach was a mixed doctrine—partly Jewish, partly 
Greek, partly Oriental, put together skilfully by himself— 


116 ©The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


a Gospel which in this way was a mere natural product 
of all the world’s best previous thinking, and having 
nothing supernatural in it at all either as to source or 
authority—Why, I say, am I to believe this teaching of 
his in the teeth of all that St. Paul says upon the sub- 
ject himself ? If I would be quite right to believe Cicero 
rather than Rénan on points of Cicero’s mental history, 
am I not equally right to believe Paul rather than 
Rénan on points of Paul’s mental history as a Christian 
disciple and convert? Of course I am speaking only 
of facts and incidents in the lives of either, not of 
Cicero’s or Paul’s deductions from the facts. They 
might be mistaken in their deductions, but they could 
not be mistaken as to the facts themselves. We may 
feel quite certain that St. Paul did not go to the sources 
of Greek and Oriental wisdom for the Gospel which he 
preached to the world, when he tells us himself as a point 
of his own biography that these were not his sources. 
There are other important questions of St. Paul’s life 
and the history of his work to which his early Epistles 
apply—as, for example, the relations in which he stood 
to St. Peter and the other Apostles, and the question 
whether Christianity in his hands grew as the development 
of a myth grows, or whether this new Straussian theory 
of the rise of the Christian system is without any real 
basis and historical foothold. On the first of these 
questions the Epistle to the Galatians is of primary 
authority ; and as Paul knew best the whole history of 
his relations to the other Apostles, and the real state of 
his own mind and feeling with regard to them and their 
ministry and the churches which they had planted, and 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 117 


the forms of Christian and Church life which they favoured 
and propagated, no theory of these things—the theory 
of Baur, e.g.—can possibly be a true one which exaggerates 
or diminishes the statements of St. Paul himself, or 
makes him feel or act differently from what he tells us of 
his own feelings and acts in this Epistle. Nor is his 
great Epistle to the Romans less relevant and important 
in relation to that other grand question debated so 
keenly in our own time: Whether the theology of the 
Epistles of the New Testament is a mythological re- 
casting and re-clothing of a few natural elementary facts 
of the life of Christ? The evidence furnished by the 
Epistle to the Romans in negation of this theory appears 
to me to be final and decisive. Within less than thirty 
years after the death of Christ we have there a full, ex- 
haustive and almost systematic exhibition of the whole 
body of Christian doctrine and morals. If Christianity 
be a mythology, as alleged by Strauss and others, in what 
a brief space of time has the myth been developed! And 
how extraordinary, how unexampled that all this should 
have been developed in a single mind, during the half 
of a single life! and this too (Saul’s miraculous conversion 
being on the same theory denied) without any expla- 
nation being possible of the quarter from which the 
original stimulus to such a mythological process in this | 
single mind was derived. The truth briefly is (for I 
cannot dwell upon the subject further at present), the 
existence of the Epistle to the Romans is, singly and 
alone, fatal to the credit of such a mythological theory of 
Christianity ; its very early date, and its grand doctrinal 
_ fulness, and its thorough maturity of dogmatic state. 


118 Zhe Evidential Value of the Early Lpisiles 


ment, are all utterly irreconcilable with the theory. All 
the conditions are proved by this Epistle to have been 
absent, to have been reversed, which all experience has 
shown to be indispensable to the development of grand 
masses and systems of myth. It has taken eighteen 
centuries and more to develop the mythology of Mary in 
the Church of Rome, and the myth is not yet complete ; 
but in less than three decades after the death of Jesus of 
Nazareth, the Son of David is already in the Epistle to 
the Romans “the Son of God with power,” declared 
and set apart as such from all other sons of men by 
His resurrection from the dead. (Rom. i. 3, 4.) The 
Crucified One is already “Christ over all; Lord both 
of the dead and living; to whom every knee shall bow 
and every tongue confess.” (Rom. xiv. 9, 11.) Whata 
mighty difference in the two cases !—a difference which, 
more than any other of the Epistles, this Epistle helps us 
to estimate and to understand. 

Such are two of the fundamental subjects of Chyesen 
history upon which the early Epistles of St. Paul can be 
brought to bear with much evidential force and effect. 
But I merely indicate them at present. I do not dwell 
upon them, for I wish to go more fully into a third 
subject of fundamental importance in the early history of 
Christianity and the Church, upon which these Epistles 
seem to me to’ have an interesting and effective bearing, 
and to which I purpose to devote the remainder of the 
present lecture. | 

The Christian Church maintains that there was a 
supernatural element not only in the life of Christ and in 
the conyersicn and mission of St. Paul (the two subjects 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 11 9 


to which I have hitherto referred), but no less also in 
the earliest propagation of Christianity throughout the 
world—in the earliest manifestations and church-organi- 
sations of the Christian life, both among Jews and 
Gentiles. As our Apostle expresses it—‘Our Gospel 
came to men not in word only but also in power, 
and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.” He 
says, “ Our Gospel”—meaning the Gospel which he 
himself preached and propagated throughout the world, 
and the working and effects of which upon men none 
knew so well as himself, or were so well able to speak 
about. Well, then, I propose that we should now listen 
to him speaking about these very points, and I could not 
have done better than to quote these few words of his 
just recited, in which he as much as tells us that there 
was something more than natural in the effects produced 
by the Gospel on the world, for “it came not in word 
only, but also in power ;” and he means a Divine power, 
for he adds—“ in the Holy Ghost,” and therefore also 
‘in much assurance,” z¢., with a force and effect of such 
deep conviction that it gave men the courage of a new 
faith and hope—carried men right over to the side of 
Christ, laid the foundations everywhere of Christian and 
Church life, and commenced in that first Christian century 
a grand history and progress which has continued un- 
broken ever since, and is still going on with unexhausted ' 
force before the face of the whole world. | 

Before I break ground upon the argument let me 
clearly announce the method of using the Epistles which 
I mean to adopt, and the principles of historical reason- 
ing which I intend to apply. 


~ 


120 Lhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


Remember the nature of the historical documents 
which are now before us; they are not treatises, they are 
letters, and not letters addressed to individuals, but to 
communities—to the Christian communities or societies 
of Thessalonica, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome. ‘They 
refer to subjects of common concern between the writer 
and these communities; they are full of express refer- 
ences to matters of Christian faith and life ; and, passing 
from a Christian Apostle to his Christian disciples and 
converts, they everywhere assume and proceed upon 
numerous Christian facts and doctrines and usages and 
institutes of the Christian life in which he and they 
believed in common, or to which they were in common 
attached. We are in presence, therefore, everywhere in 
these pages not only of what he believed, but of what 
they believed as well as he; in presence of Christian facts 
which were not only such to him, but quite as much 
so to them. For it was upon this basis of common faith 
and fact that the correspondence between him and 
them proceeded. But for this common basis—the basis 
on which these societies were founded—there could have 
existed no such correspondence of aposiolic letters at all; 
no, nor even any such relation of apostleship and disci- 
pleship between the parties. 

But here I make a distinction (an important one for 
my present argument) among these matters of Christian 
faith and fact common to both the parties in the 
correspondence. ‘These Christian communities believed 
in many Christian facts of which they had no inde- 
pendert knowledge from their own observation ; such, 
eég., as all the facts of Christ’s life which the Apostle had 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 121 


communicated to them, or all the facts concerning his 
own conversion and apostleship, which were known in 
the first instance only to himself and a very small num- 
ber of other witnesses. I do not mean to make any use 
of such facts as these, or of their belief in them, because 
in relation to these their testimony was of no authority 
—at least, of no primary authority. They had not been 
eye-witnesses of them. They had been dependent for 
all their knowledge of them upon St. Paul’s own teach- 
ing and testimony ; and their reception of them, in the 
first instance at least, was only the echo of his own voice. 

But I am going to point out several facts referred to in 
these Epistles of quite a different kind—several facts of a 
supernatural character which the Apostle refers to as 
having taken place among themselves—before their own 
eyes, and within the scope of their own independent 
knowledge—he too having been an eye-witness of 
them himself. Here then is apparently a common 
basis of knowledge and conviction between the two 
parties in regard to facts of a supernatural kind, 
in which both parties are on equal terms, both 
having an original, primary, and independent know- 
ledge and conviction of their reality. If this can be 
shown to be more than an apparency of a common basis 
of knowledge and conviction—if it can be shown that 
both parties had and must have had this common know- 
ledge and conviction (otherwise the references to these 
supernatural facts and experiences could never have oc- 
curred in the Epistles), then the argumentative, evidential 
effect of this will clearly be to prove that these matters 
of supernatural fact rest on the united testimony both of 


122 Lhe Evidenital Vaiue of the Early Epistles 


the Apostle and the churches—that the testimony in both 
cases was original and of primary authority, and that the 
Epistles before us become virtually and in effect the joint 
attestation to these facts of the Apostle as having seen 
them with his own eyes, and of hundreds of men in 
Thessalonica, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome, as having 
seen them and known them to be facts as well as he. 

Proceeding now to the substance of the argument itself, 
I shall be able to do little more than to suggest the chief 
points as subjects for your own reflection when you turn, 
as I hope you will be induced to do, to the Epistles 
themselves, to read them over again in view of the evi- 
dential values of their contents which this lecture will 
point out. 

1. First then let us turn to the two Epistles to the 
Thessalonians to see what is to be found there on the 
subject of the new Christian character and life which had 
sprung up in Thessalonica under the Apostle’s preaching, 
and had continued to thrive and grow and develop itself 
since his recent visit. One or two readings will suffice to 
set this picture before us :— 

(x. Thess. i. 2, 3.) “ We give thanks to God always for 
you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remem- 
bering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, 
and patience of hope tn our Lord Fesus Christ, in the sight 
of God and our Father.” (1.Thess.i.8-10.) ‘* Zz every place 
your faith to God-ward ts spread abroad; so that we need 
not to speak anything. For they themselves shew of us what 
manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned 
to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and 
to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from 


of St Paul wewed as Historical Documents. > 3 


the dead, even Fesus, which delivered us from the wrath 
to come. (1. Thess. il. 1.) For yourselves, brethren, know 
our entrance tn unto you, that it was not tn vain.” 

All at once, on hearing the preaching of Paul, these 
Thessalonians had abandoned their idolatries and turned 
to the living and true God, to serve Him ina holy and 
blameless life, in the power of a new and heavenly hope. 
All at once they had become men of faith and faith’s 
work—men of love and love’s labour—men of hope 
and of hope’s patience, in the midst of persecution and 
affliction endured on account of their new faith and life. 

Nor was this sudden change illusory and transient. 
Months passed away, and a second letter is despatched to 
them, beginning in the same strain of warm-hearted 
thankfulness. (2. Thess. i. 3, 4.) “ We are bound to thank 
God always for you, brethren, as it ts meet, because that 
your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every 
one of you all toward each other aboundeth; so that we 
ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your 
patience and faith tn all your persecutions and tribulations 
that ye endure.” 

The language seems strong and high-coloured. Was 
the Apostle flattering them? Did he use such words 
“as a Cloke of coveteousness ’—concealing and subsery- 
ing some selfish ends and designs of his own ? Impos- 
sible ! for what does he say to them on this very point 
of flattery and cloaked self-seeking? (Chap. ii. 5.) Ap- 
pealing directly to their own knowledge of him and his 
ways, he could boldly say, ‘ For neither at any time used 
we flattering words, as ye know, nor a coke of covetous- 
mess, aS God ts witness. Nor of men sought we glory, 


124 he Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


neither of you nor yet of others whom we might have been 
burdensome as the Apostles of Christ.’ He had never 
ftattered these Thessalonians, and they knew it. All he 
says here about the rise and growth of the Christian life 
among them was no more than the truth ; for which he 
might well give fervent and constant thanks to God. 
But how could he have thanked Him for a flattery and a 
lie? Would he have dared to appeal to these men as 
being no flatterer, if he had been conscious that he was 
even now flattering them in thus describing their cha- 
racter and life? To flatter them, and in the same breath 
to appeal to their own knowledge of him that he had 
never been a flatterer, is that conceivable in such aman? 
And would not such a proceeding have been utterly fatal 
to his character and credit among them as their religious 
teacher and guide? 

Here then we have virtually a joint testimony from 
him and from them as to the matter of fact in question— 
the first appearance in Thessalonica of Christian cha- 
racter and life, and of Church society resting upon these. 
It is a memorable fact. It marks a grand epoch in the 
history of Greece and of Europe. Here in Macedonia 
and in Thessalonica, is the first rise of Christian life 
under the ministry of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. 
It is quite a new and strange phenomenon. ‘The like 
effects of religious and moral teaching had never been 
seen before—never among the Pagans, never among the 
Jews. And it was the same wherever the Apostle had 
been, or was yet to be in the fulfilment of his mission—in 
Galatia, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and in Rome. His 
experience everywhere was what he expresses in one of 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. ~ >> 5 


his Epistles to the Corinthians (2 Cor. v. 17, 18): “If 
any man is in Christ,” if any man becomes a real and 
true Christian, “he is @ new creature; old things are 
passed away from him, behold! all things are made new ; 
and all things,” he adds, all these things of the Chris- 
tian man and the Christian life, ‘‘are of God.” 

Yes! All these things, he asserted, were of God. 
They had a Divine source and origin. These spiritual 
and moral phenomena never seen in the world before, 
which the Gospel of Christ was everywhere calling forth 
into view, had a supernatural character and quality about 
them—not sprung from the lap of mother-nature, but 
born of a truth and a power which had both descended 
from heaven, from the love and grace of the Heavenly 
Father. 

The facts of the case defy contradiction. Do you 
accept also the Apostle’s explanation of them? He 
maintained the facts to have a supernatural cause in two 
distinct particulars, viz., in a Gospel Divinely revealed 
and in a Divine presence and power accompanying this 
Gospel. Do you accept this solution of the origin of 
the facts in either or in both its parts, or do you disallow 
and reject it, and substitute another of a naturalistic 
kind, asserting that even if the facts were really such as 
we have been looking at, you still see no sufficient reason 
to think that they had anything in them which was' 
beyond the powers of nature to produce? 

2. This brings me to the second link in the chain of 
proof which I wish to present to you. I invite you to 
turn with me for our second reading of these Epistles to 
the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 


126 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


Let me suppose that your view of the Gospel is 
that it is a merely human thing, a mere natural product 
of the age in which it was first preached to the world. 
In the case of St. Paul in particular, its chief preacher 
and propagator, your view, I suppose, would be that 
in his hands the Gospel was nothing more than a com- 
plex or mixture of the best things which he had learned 
in the schools of Tarsus and Jerusalem, with some 
addition, perhaps, of Oriental ideas from the Greco- 
Jewish sources of Alexandria. The whole effect of his 
preaching, you think, was due to this combination of in- 
gredients of human wisdom. It was a great improve- 
ment, you admit, upon either Judaism or Heathenism, 
taken separately. The Alexandrian mixture of the two 
in such writers as Philo had already made something 
better than either, and the Pauline mixture of the three 
was something better still; and this, you think, is suf 
ficient to account for its power to work the effects it did. 
‘Well, then, let me bring this way of thinking into com- 
parison with the experiences and the convictions of the 
most earnest minds at the time when Christianity was 
making its earliest conquests in Corinth. The situation 
of matters there was singularly appropriate for such a 
comparison ; for not only the Jewish and the Greek 
wisdom but also the Alexandrian gnosis or science had 
its representatives among the Corinthian Christians at 
that very time ; for Apollos of Alexandria had arrrived 
there shortly after the Apostle’s first visit, and his “ excel- 
lency of speech and of wisdom” had made so great an 
impression upon those who were able to appreciate them 
that a party had arisen in the Church who preferred to be 


he , ie 2 _ " ow abit y ‘a —— a's " 
ee ee ee ee ee a ET 


EE ee a a ee 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 27 


called the disciples of Apollos rather than of Paul. It 
was partly owing to this movement which, without any 
blame attaching to Apollos, had taken the direction, after 
he left Corinth, of an undue overvaluing of human 
wisdom and rhetoric in the things of God, that the 
Apostle addressed to the Church this very Epistle. And 
it was with the view of correcting this dangerous tendency 


that he penned the remarkable passages which we are 
now to consider : 


(1 Cor. i.17-19.) ‘‘ Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
preach the Gospel; not with wisdom of words, less the cross 
of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching 
of the cross ts to them that are perishing foolishness ; but 
unto us which are saved, it ts the power of God. Lor it ts 
written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will 
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 

You see here how far the Apostle was from thinking 
that the preaching of the Gospel was only one of the 
better forms, or the very best extant form of human 
wisdom, or that human wisdom had anything to do with 
giving iteffect. The very contrary was his conviction on 
both points. The Gospel was simply the preaching of 
the Cross of Christ, and the whole power of that 
preaching lay in its own absolute newness and _ origi- 
nality. To mix anything of human wisdom with it was 
to spoil it, and make if as weak as all mere human 
wisdom had been. No doubt there was also a “wisdom 
of the wise,” and an “understanding of the prudent,” 
and these were all well enough in their own place and 
for their own work. But it was never possible that they 
should have the place and the power of saving sou/s— 


303 Lhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


of delivering men, that is to say, from the yoke and 
power, the bondage and the misery of sin, and bringing 
them back into God’s image and God’s peace. ‘That 
is a power, St. Paul thought, which comes forth from 
God alone, and which is communicated only in the 
preaching of the Cross. That is a power which ‘ the 
wisdom of the wise” may put in a claim to possess, and 
which “the understanding of the prudent” may affect 
to put forth, but God has said, “I will destroy the 
wisdom of the wise, I will bring to nothing the under- 
standing of the prudent”—in the sense of exposing to 
shame their utter emptiness and impotence for any such 
saving and redeeming work. For such work the wisdom 
of man is folly, and the strength of man utter weakness 
and abortion. Not only has God said it, He has also 
made it good by the demonstration of world-facts and 
world-history. For mark how the Apostle goes on 
(vv. 20—25): “ Where is the wise? where ts the scribe? 
where is the disputer of this world? Did not God make 
foolish (i.e., convict of foolishness) the wisdom of the world ? 
For when in the wisdom of God (1.e., in His wise dispen- 
sation and ordering of epochs and events) the world through 
tts wisdom knew not God (i.e., had failed utterly to reach 
the knowledge of His mind and will), tt pleased God through 
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Lor 
the Fews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. 
But we preach Christ crucified, to the Fews a stumbling 
block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to them which are 
called, both Fews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and 
the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser 
than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 1 29 


In other words, it is proved by the whole history of the 
world down to the era of Christ that no wisdom of man 
_is able to save the souls of men from sin, and that the 
Gospel of Christ which is able to do this for mankind, 
and has already done it in the experience of so many, is 
not any form or growth or adaptation of human wisdom 
but a Gospel of God—a truth revealed to men from 
Heaven. In point of fact, and of history, the world at 
its advent was still unsaved from its sin—in spite of all 
the boasted wisdom of the schools of Greece, of Jeru- 
salem, and the East. In point of fact it is the preaching 
of the Cross alone that has brought to the world an 
epoch of salvation—a way of life and peace. Some men 
call it indeed foolishness, but none the less it is God’s 
wiser wisdom. Some men scoff at it as weakness, but 
none the less it is God’s stronger strength. 

But now mark well what follows next in the Apostle’s 
pleading. He makes his appeal in support of all this to 
the independent knowledge and experience of the 
Corinthians themselves. He compares ideas with them, 
he makes a confident call upon their own consciousness 
and knowledge and recollection to support his own 
(vv. 26—end) : “ For consider your calling, brethren, hore, 
that not many (of you) were wise men after the flesh (i.e., 
in the sense of human wisdom), not many mighty men, not 
many noble. But God chose the foolish things of the 
world that He might put to shame the things that are 
wise, and God chose the weak things of the world that 
fle might put to shame the things that are mighty, and 
the base things of the world and the things which are des- 
pised Mid God choose, yea, the things which are not, that 

2 


130 Lhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


He might bring to nought the things that are, that no flesh 
should glory in His presence. But of Himare ye in Chrise 
Fesus, who from God was made unto us wisdom, ana 
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. That 
according as tt ts written, He that glorieth let him glory in 
the Lord” What in commoner language is the gist of 
all this? Simply that the Corinthians themselves were 
instances and proofs of the truth of what the Apostle 
had said, and could be appealed to as such. Who 
and what were these Corinthian Christians? Not many 
of them were men of high education, or of much rank and 
influence in the society of their great city. It was not 
to these advantages that they could ascribe the change that _ 
had come over their whole character and life as Christian 
men. All these advantages had done nothing for the 
religious and moral condition of the few among them who 
possessed them, and the great majority of them had never 
possessed these advantages at all. The preaching of the 
Cross, and that alone, had done for them what all the 
wisdom, and teaching, and influence of men had never 
been able to achieve. They were now for the first time 
new men—new creatures in character, life-habit, and life- 
hope ; but they had become so only in Christ Jesus— 
only by the knowledge and faith of His truth and grace, 
only by the preaching of Christ the power of God, and 
the wisdom of God. ‘This is what I take to be the true 
meaning of the Apostle’s vigorous words about the con- 
founding of the wise by the foolish, and of the mighty by 
the weak, and about the bringing to nought of the things 
that are by the things that are not—of the men that were 
somethings in the world by the men that were nothings 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 1 31 


init, or mere nonentities. For see! (he as mich as says) 
how the tables are turned now by. the coming in upon the 
world of Him “who brings down the mighty from their 
seats and exalteth the humble and meek.” It is the fools 
now who are made wise in Christ, and the weak strong, 
and the nobodies somebodies. It is the Christless wise 
who are fools now, the Christless strong who are weak 
now, the Christless somebodies who are nobodies now 
in religion and morals, in the true philosophy of by in 
life’s true use, and work, and hope. 

I beg you, to remember and realise that all this is 
put by the Apostle in this place, not as a matter of | 
doctrine or theology, but as a matter of fact and history— 
as a matter of actual experience and observation, and 
therefore of special value and weight for the purposes 
of my argument. It is a lesson of history which the 
Apostle here reads off to us, as it was plainly taught by 
all that he had read in the annals of the world, by all 
that he had seen and known of the religious and moral 
conditions of the nations, and by ali that he had ex- 
perienced in his apostolic travels and labours. The 
passage has also the great additional value of being a 
comparison of his own observations and experiences with 
those of his Corinthian disciples. Both parties had been 
eye-witnesses of the situation of matters before the Gospel | 
began to be published, and since—and here we have the 
result which was forced by the demonstration of facts upon 
both parties alike, viz., that the religion which had w rought 
the great changes of diate and life which as a matter 
of fact were plain and undeniable, was the wisdom OL 
God, and not the wisdom of man—the truth and revela- 


132 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


tion of God, and not the speculation or invention of man, 
As the Apostle so eloquently puts it, “Eye of man had 
never seen, ear of man had never heard, nor had it ever 
entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which 
God hath prepared for them that love Him,” the things of 
the Gospel; but God hath revealed them to the Church by 
His Spirit. This wisdom is from above. It could not be 
Jewish wisdom in a new form, for to the Jews as a nation 
it was a stumbling-block. And it could not be Greek 
wisdom brought into a new connexion, for to the Greeks 
the preaching of Christ crucified was utter foolishness. 
No! it was a new thing in the earth, it was a new crea- 
tion in the sphere of religion and morals. It was anew 
starting-point and beginning in the religious and ethical 
life of the world. And such a new creation for man, 
drawing nothing from man himself, could only have 
sprung out of the life-power of Almighty God. Such a 
new starting-point for the world, which owed none of its 
impulses to the world itself, could only have received its 
impulse from a Supreme hand—from Him who, without 
Beginning Himself, is the providential and beneficent 
Beginner of all the grand movements of the world 
towards light and goodness. 

To bring now this section of the argument to a distinct 
point. We have here the joint testimony of St. Paul and 
the Corinthian Christians to the supernatural origin of 
the Gospel of Christ, as proved by the mighty influences 
of a religious and moral kind which they had seen it 
produce. Is their testimony valid? Ought it to have 
weight with us? Ought it to have more weight with us 
than the opinions of the unbelievers and disbelievers of 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 133 


this nineteenth century? I think in all justice and in all 
common sense it ought. The conviction of the first 
Christians on this subject rested upon observation and 
experience—and these not other men’s, but their own. 
The disbelief of the present age rests on mere specula- 
tion and foregone philosophical conclusions. An abstract 
alleged axiom of philosophy lies at the base of it, viz., 
that the supernatural is impossible, and that therefore 
there was and there could be nothing supernatural either 
in the effects produced by Christianity in the ‘frst 
age, or in the substance and origin of Christianity 
itself. But such an axiom as this is anything but 
axiomatic. It needs to be proved before it is applied, 
and it never has been proved, and never will be, 
and never can be. Call in question the axiom, and all 
its @ priord applications to theological controversy become 
inept and nullat once. I prefer the practical reasoning 
of St. Paul and his converts—“ We and many thousands 
more,” said they, “‘find ourselves new creatures in Christ; 
it was the Gospel of Christ that did this for us and 
nothing else ; it is more than the wisdom of the world ever 
did for us or could do ; it is more than ever we were able 
to do for ourselves. He who did it for us by His Gospel 
must be greater and mightier than men. He must be 
what we call Him, ‘the Son of God with power ;’ and 
His Gospel—the rod of His power, the arm of His 
strength, must be like himself, Divine.” It is a plain, 
practical kind of reasoning, I admit. It may not sound 
in some ears very philosophic, but it has the ring none 
the less of sound common sense ; and we should remem- 
ber that, after all, the philosophy of common sense, the 


134 Zhe LEvidential Value of the Early Epistles 


philosophy of observation and experience is acknow- 
ledged by philosophers themselves to be the wisest and 
safest and most fruitful of all philosophies. 

Let me now point out to you a dhird and a fourth 
link of evidence supplied by these early Epistles, and 
bearing specially on the point of the Divine Zresence and 
power which accompanied the preaching of the Gospel in 
the hands of the Apostles. If this was a reality, it was 
of course a supernatural element. Do these Epistles 
contribute anything to preve that it was a real historical 
thing? Let us see. First, listen to the convictions of 
St. Paul himself upon the point—a point on which, more 
than any other man in the world, he was entitled to 
speak with authority and weight, as it so closely con- 
cerned the one great work of his whole life, and pene- 
trated to the very core of its meaning and force. And 
let it be carefully observed, as before, that in the passage 
I am now to read from him he is not dogmatizing, not 
laying down a doctrine or article of faith : he is recalling 
the circumstances of his first visit to Corinth; he is 
referring to personal facts and incidents and conditions 
of that visit of which the Corinthians were cognizant as 
well as himself. ‘The passage is a bit of St. Paul’s auto- 
biography—a bit of early Church history, not of early 
Church dogma. (1 Cor. i. 1, 4). ‘‘ And L, brethren, when 
I came to yon, came declaring: unto you the testimony of 


God ; not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, for I deter- : 


mined not to know anything among you save Fesus Christ 
and Him crucified; and [was with you in weakness and 
in fear and in much trembling; and my speech and my 
preaching was not with persuasive words of man’s wisdom, 


——_ ee 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 13% 
but with demonstration of the Spirit and of power ; to the 
end that your faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, 
but in the power of God.” ‘That is to say, as he came to 
Corinth to publish solely a Divine message and not a 
human one, so his sole confidence for the effect of his 
publication of it was confidence not in his own power or 
persuasiveness as a preacher, for he felt nothing but weak- 
ness, but in the power of that God whom he served, 
in the demonstration and manifestation of “the 
Spirit.” If they received his message, their faith 
was to stand or rest not in any manifestation of the 
power of man, but only in the manifested power 
of God. ‘They were to be, as he says in another place, 
God’s own husbandry, not his. It was the presence and 
power of God’s Spirit that was to work their conversion 
in Christ, and to make them new creatures in Christ. 
That, he tells them, was his working programme when he 
first came among them ; and what was the upshot of his 
work so projected and planned? It had been an im- 
mense success. The power of God had been ‘ demon- 
strated” among them as he had expected. ‘‘God gave 
the increase ; for neither is he that planteth anything ; 
neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the in- 
crease ”—THe is everything in this work, He is all in all. 
But here I shall suppose that you stand in doubt of the 
reality of this supernatural power accompanying the . 
. Gospel on the ground of its being an invisible and 
impalpable power, working unseen in men’s minds, if 
working at all, and not manifesting its presence and 
force in any undeniable way to the senses. I do not 
sympathise much with such a doubt, resting upon such a 


136 | Zhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


ground, because surely revolutions of character and life 
and conduct in men are effects of power palpable 
enough even to men’s senses. But Jet that pass, and 
rather let me call your attention to two remarkable facts 
preserved to us by these Epistles to the Corinthians, 
which prove in the most unanswerable manner that a 
supernatural presence and power were then at work in 
Corinth in the most palpable forms possible, and with 
effects and manifestations of a kind which might even be 
called sensational. And these two facts are the two 
additional links of proof to which I referred. 

(2 Cor, xii. 12.) “Zruly the signs of an Apostle were 
wrought among you in all patience, tn signs and won- 
ders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein 
ye were inferior to other Churches? Except it be 
that I myself was not burdensome to you. Forgive me 
this wrong.” He plainly means “ miracles” of the most 
palpable kind—he means “mighty deeds,” only to be 
wrought upon nature and the common order of the 
world by a power above nature herself. Yes! and he 
refers to them as having taken place before the eyes of 
the Corinthians themselves—as things which they knew 
to have taken place, and were as certain of having seen, 
as he was himself. Could he have written in that manner 
to them, about miracles done among them, if no such 
miracles had ever been done? Could he have appealed 
to these miracles as signs of his Apostleship, if they had 
been all myths and unrealities! Could he have so 
appealed to them in a context, where he is finding grave 
fault with the Corinthians, where he is remonstrating 
with them for giving too much countenance to men whom 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 137 


he characterises as false Apostles, transforming them- 
selves into Apostles of Christ? He points to those 
miracles as the seals of his own Apostleship, as vouchers 
of its being a true and not a false Apostleship. He is 
arguing with the Corinthians, he is putting them in the 
wrong; he is pressing his controversy closely home 
upon them. And it is in such a connexion and discourse 
that he is bold to say, “ Zyuw/y the signs of an Apostle 
were wrought among you.” This could only be the boldness 
of conscious truth. This was an appeal which he well 
knew it was impossible for them to resist. They had 
seen “the mighty deeds” of God in Corinth as well as 
he. They were God’s witnesses to them as well as he. 
The other fact referred to—the remaining link of the 
argument—is the remarkable one so fully set out in the 
twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians, a chapter too long to be 
quoted in full here, touching the “spiritual gifts ” of that 
church, which he calls “the manifestation of the Spirit, 
given to every man to profit withal.” “For to one is 
given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word 
of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another the 
gifts of healing, to another the working of miracles, to 
another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another 
divers kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues. 
But all these worketh the one and self same Spirit, dividing 
to every man severally as He willeth.” ere, verily, was 
a demonstration of the Spirit of God and of power in 
the most manifold and palpable forms. If gifts like 
these did not and could not manifest a supernatural 
presence and working, I know not what could manifest 
them. And there was an indubitable and indisputable 


138 Lhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


reality in the whole matter. If I am sure that this 
letter is from the hand of St. Paul, and was addressed 
to the hands of the Corinthian Christians—and I may 
be as sure of these facts as of the genuineness and the 
date of any letter of Cicero or Pliny—I may be also 
equally sure that the things which he refers to in 
these extraordinary terms were real things and no de- 
lusions. For he speaks of things of which he claims 
to have himself large experience. ‘‘ I thank my God,” 
he exclaims (1 Cor. xiv. 18), I speak with tongues 
more than you all.” Could he be under a delusion as to 
the reality of a supernatural endowment possessed by 
himself in so high a degree? or could he have expected 
the Corinthians to believe at his suggestion that 
they had been endowed with it too, if they had 
had no knowledge and experience of the fact them- 
selves, if they had known the exact contrary to 
be the fact? I am compelled by the inexorable 
logic of common sense to believe that these gifts 
of the Spirit were facts of the church-life of Corinth ; 
and the inexorable logic of the facts themselves compels 
me to believe and confess “that God was in the midst of 
them of a truth.” It was for the sake of this inexorable 
logic of facts that the facts were brought to pass ; 
they were meant to be “signs to the unbelievers,” 
to heal them of their unbelief. We know that they 
answered that purpose then (1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25); 
and such a genuine contemporary original record of 
them as we have here handed down to us, is well fitted 
to answer the same evidential purpose still. I know, of 
course, the difficulties which it is possible to raise upon 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 139 


the collateral points of a subject like this, of which we 
have nowhere in the New Testament an exhaustive 
account, and of which we have had no personal expe- 
rience ourselves. But the difficulties upon collateral 
points attaching to facts are no disproof of the facts 
themselves, when the facts are strongly attested and 
vouched. I know also how easy it is for men to ride off 
from this whole subject in a contemptuous manner upon 
the allegation that both St. Paul and his Corinthian 
converts must have been in a frenzy of enthusiasm, or 
had fallen into a fit of religious madness. But St. Paul . 
might weil have replied at the bar of modern disbelief in 
the memorable words which he used at the bar of 
Festus: ‘‘I am not mad, but speak forth the words of 
truth and soberness.” Yes, his soderness of mind on this 
very subject vouches for his truthfulness and accuracy 
upon it. He writes upon the whole matter, supernatural 
as it was, like a man of sense and of a_ well-regu- 
lated mind ; like a man whose judgment was as sound. 
and enlightened as his personal endowments were mira 
culous. ‘‘In the Church,” he writes (1 Cor. xiv. 19), 
“‘T had rather speak five words with my understanding 
that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words 
in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in 
understanding, but in understanding be men.” Is 
not that spoken like a man of sense? Is that 
the language and bearing of a heated enthusiast, 
proud of his own imaginary endowments, dazzled by 
them beyond the power of clear-seeing, and wildly 
exaggerating and extolling their value? Does not 
this great teacher, who desires all his friends at 


140 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


Corinth to be men and not children in understanding, 
begin by showing that he was such a man himself?— 
no childish dreamer deluding himself with fond fables 
and conceits, but a manly thinker with senses well 
trained and exercised to discern good and evil, truth 
and error, fact and fable, history and myth, reality and 
seeming. 

Here my present argument must end. But before I 
quite close this address, will you allow me to throw out 
one or two suggestions arising naturally from my subject, 
with the view of correcting one or two very common 
misapprehensions which, for anything I know, may at 
this moment be influencing some of yourselves. 7 

You see here how the early Church of Christ was 
planted and rooted in the world before any part of the 
New Testament collection was written at all. The 
Churches of Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome, 
were all gathered to Christ before the Epistles to these 
Churches were written, and these Epistles we have 
seen, are the oldest writings in the New Testament. 
It is foolish then for men to think that by picking 
faults with the New Testament here and there they can 
rid themselves of Christianity altogether. Christianity 
existed and flourished both in Asia and Europe before 
any part of the New Testament came into existence. The 
Gospel of Christ was a spoken and victorious Gospel be- 
fore it was a written one, and ifit was true and triumphant 
even as a spoken Gospel it must be true and worthy to 
‘triumph still. 

Again, if you admit, as you cannot help doing, that 
at least these early Epistles of St. Paul are genuine 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 141 


historical documents, do not imagine that you get 
rid of their historical truth by denying their Divine in- 
spiration. I shall suppose that you do not agree with 
the Church of Christ upon that matter of inspiration. 
You think you see many strong objections against such 
aclaim. You think you can break it down by no end 
of arguments. Very well, but remember that you have 
here the earliest historical documents of Christianity be- 
fore you—and these of undoubted genuineness, and of 
high historic validity—and you have no warrant to neglect 
or ignore these documents for the uses of history, merely 
because you do not take them to be inspired. You ac- 
cept innumerable things of the past as true and important 
upon the credit of ancient or modern histories—though 
these had no claim to be given by inspiration of God. 
Well, then, act in the same way by these early Epistles of 
St. Paul. To begin with, distinguish between the truth of 
ancient facts of Christian history and the alleged inspira- 
tion of the documents which record and establish them. 
Convince yourselves first, if you are able, of the truth of 
the facts contained in the documents viewed simply as 
materials of history. Afterwards it will be time enough 
for you to take up and settle the ulterior question of their 
Divine quality and authority. If Christianity, as we have 
seen, might have been true and triumphant without a 
single book of the New Testament being written, it might 
have been equally so without a single book of the New 
Testament being inspired. 

Last of all, let me suppose that you have one grand a 
priort objection to everything that can be said about 
supernatural truths, facts, writings, and personages,-—viz. 


142 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 


that you see no sufficient reason to think that there is - 
any supernatural being or power in the universe at all, 
anything above nature, or distinct from it, or able to 
interfere with it, or either to order it or to dislocate its 
order. 

Well! but I do not suppose you undertake Zo prove 
that there is no God. That were a Quixotic undertaking. 
All you mean to say is that as yet you have seen no suffi- 
cient proof of God’s Being and Power andagency. Ifso, 
it is more proof which you are in quest of or should be. 
If so, I think such historical documents as those we have 
been speaking of to-night have something to say upon 
that grand question. I do not see how the supernatural 
facts there vouched for are to be got rid of by the bare 
assertion that there is nothing in the universe above 
nature. That seems tome to be a mere begging of the 
question. You say you are without evidence enough to 
prove that there is any God at all. I reply, and am en- 
titled to reply, Well! here at least is some relevant evi- 
dence of a historical kind applicable to the question. 
Impossible! you urge, there is nothing to prove that 
there is a God in history. Nay, I reply, ot zmfos- 
sible. Ut is possible enough that there may be facts of 
history which admit of no other explanation than by 
referring them to supernatural Being and Power, and 
the facts vouched by these earliest of all the Christian 
documents appear to me to be of that kind. It is no 
argument to deny and exclude all supernatural solutions 
a priort. You are bound by good logic and by common 
sense, first, to try whether any naturalistic solution of 
these facts can be found that will bear a searching criti- 


of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 143 


cism, and failing any such, to admit that here at least 
you have come upon some facts which multitudes not only 
of intelligent but learned men have interpreted in a super- 
natural sense, and which cannot be explained or accounted 
for satisfactorily in any other way. 
If the facts of nature are at least relevant materials in 
_ arguing the question of God’s Being and Work, I do 
‘not see why facts of history thoroughly well attested 
should not be relevant materials also. We have come, I 
am persuaded, upon some such materials of history to- 
night, and I commend them to the serious thoughts of 
any among you who are still debating with yourselves 
the most fundamental of all questions of Being’ and Power. 


aie 4 Ai! 


~* A Cy a 1 > “4 » 
4 4 pe oF i me . Re eg f J -ph AG 
, c.? ips Nad ‘ 
he 4 , 2 . a 
y na 27 Pere ra ren 
nd 1 
‘ 
t 
rry ' 
4 
&e 
* ” =| 
% 
‘ 
i. : 
A] 
« 
’ 
' 
- 
s 
* 
J 


‘OF SEE PALS 


BYS ss 


REV. JOHN GRITTON. 
s 
‘ 
é 
a 
; ‘ 
y F J i 
i 
ey Ue Tot 
‘ Prat : ye 
pte ye 
" 4 Ns tat 
; : a 
id oa 
\ A e n ere : “ i 2 " 


ae Mes eR Ic ye ame eT Tee CP yi) 


- ¥ 
eet i. 
ae. 


Low Dpttleten on St. aul, 


—a~4 


THE EVIDENTIAL FORCE OF THE CONVER- 
SION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL, 


Y reason of the endless variety in the minds of men 
B —as endless possibly as the varieties of human 
countenances—the same argument will become weighty 
or weak according to the person to whom it is addressed, 
and a kind of evidence which affects one person conclu- 
sively may fail to influence another person in even the 
slightest degree. But underlying this variety there is an 
uniformity of mind—as to its nature and its capacity for 
for being influenced by evidence—which encourages men 
to seek in one way or another, by this or that process, 
to influence their fellows towards the acceptance of be- 
liefs which they themselves have adopted. In conse- 
quence of this uniformity, and of this variety, the Christian 
believer is led to present evidences to the minds of non- 
believers, and is induced to present many kinds of evi- 
dence, and to place the points of evidence in varying 
proportion and relation, hoping that some kind of evi- 
dence, or various evidential elements in varying relations, 


148 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


may beget in the hearer’s mind the conviction that the 
Christian system is Divine in its origin and worthy of the 
fullest credit. 

Some minds are so constituted or are so trained, that 
sf one line of evidence presents itself forcibly, and they are 
able to grasp it as conclusive, they are never again 
troubled by difficulties which affect only other lines of 
evidence. But minds of a different type oF habit can 
never be satisfied by one strong line of argument on a 
given subject, while objections lie against some other kind 
of evidence by which also the subject may be exhibited 
or proved. Let us illustrate this difference. Here is a 
man who has been persuaded that Christianity is from. 
God, and that the Books of the Old and New Covenant 
in which that system is contained are given by inspira- 
tion of God. He has attained to that conviction, so far . 
as mental exercise is concerned, by observing that in 
revealed religion there is a wonderful likeness to many 
things in the order of nature, and by inferring from this 
likeness that both come from the same hand and have 
been fashioned by the same wisdom, prevision, and power ; 
or conviction may have resulted from observing the 
wonderful uniqueness, originality and verisimilitude in the 
character of Jesus Christ of Nazareth ; or the argument 
from prophecy may have established his confidence in 
the verity of the Bible as the Word of God : at all events 
in some way or other he has arrived at that conviction. 
In the course of after investigation he finds himself face 
to face with difficulties such as those which exist or seem 
to exist in reconciling the Mosaic cosmogony with geo- 
logical fact or geological theory, but he will never be 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 149 


shaken or troubled in mind by such difficulties, knowing 
that the Book is true whatever may be the case as to 
geology ; and concluding that if the fact in nature fall not 
in with the apparent statement of the Bible, it is not the 
Book but the interpretation of the Book which is faulty, 
and that if the statement in the Book is absolutely con- 
tradictory of the supposed fact in science the fact is after 
all but a theory miscalled. In the same way he deals 
consciously or unconsciously with biblical difficulties 
touching on arithmetic, or ethnology, or morals. He has 
settled the verity of the Book on one clear line of argu- 
ment, and he considers that his partial knowledge of the 
whole field in debate fully justifies him in waiting and 
expecting the solution of difficulties. 

Let us take the case of a man who is the type of the 
other habit of mind to which reference has been made. 
He has concluded from prophecy or miracles, or the cha- 
racter of Jesus, or the general concensus of differing lines 
of evidence, that the Bible is of God and that therefore 
Christianity is Divine. But he too meets with difficulties, 
numerical, moral, scientific or historical, and they have 
so much effect on him that he never quite rests in his 
conviction of the truth and certainty of the Bible because 
there are these difficulties ; and, even when with increas- 
ing knowledge he is conscious that the difficulty of yes- 
terday is no difficulty now, he still never learns to con-' 
clude that remaining difficulties will disappear before the 
brighter light of advancing study. 

Under these varying circumstances the Christian advo- 
cate will learn to deal with many lines of evidence and 
in many different ways. He will endeavour at one time 


I50 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


; to present a general view of testimony, and at another 

will confine himself to some specific and limited line of 
thought. To-day he will endeavour to place the enquirer 
where he may obtain a coup a’ eil of evidence which, how- 
ever, from its very breadth and fulness will be lacking in 
definition and sharpness. ‘To-morrow he will place the 
student at a selected point of view whence he will see 
some one or some few objects with distinctness, but will 
see them only. 

It is this latter process to which we give ourselves to- 
night. I wish to lay before you in a brief way the special 
line of enquiry by which one particular person was led to 
the conclusion that Christianity is of God. There may 
be many in this assembly unwilling or even unable to see 
the full importance and force of the evidence which will 
be adduced, because pre-engaged with general scepticism 
or with some special objections ; but others may be here 
who will see in the evidence adduced, the same force and 
conclusiveness which it presented to the mind of Lord 
Lyttleton, to whose process of speaks I invite 
you to-night. 

The Lord Lyttleton of whom we speak was an active 
politician and statesman of the reign of George the 
Second. He was well acquainted with the world and at 
the same time studious and reflective, As a poet he en- 
joys the honour of a place in “ Johnson’s Lives.” His 
“Dialogues of the Dead” exhibits him as the thoughtful 
moralist, while his voluminous but heavy “History of 
Henry the Second” testifies to his ability to investigate 
fact and weigh evidence. 

The period in which he lived was not favourable to 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paue. 15T 


_ Christian studies or to godly living. General scepticism 
in sentiment, and abounding profligacy in life marked the 
whole period in which Lord Lyttleton lived and acted, 
and he did not escape unscathed in the furnace of evil in 
which he lived. Johnson who sketches his life testifies 
“He had, in the pride of youthful confidence, with the 
help of corrupt conversation, entertained doubts of Chris- 
tianity,” and it was not till he was nearly forty years of age 
that he was led inio that course of reading and reflection 
of which Johnson writes, “‘ His studies, being honest, 
ended in conviction.” 

We do not know with certainty what were the facts 
which first arrested his attention, or the arguments which 
overcame his scepticism ; but we do know from his own 
writings that he regarded the conversion of St. Paul, and 
his after life as an Apostle, taken in connexion with his 
undisputed writings, as containing on one single and 
limited line of evidence a force and conclusiveness suf- 
ficient to convince an honest enquirer, or, to use his ‘own 
words, ‘‘ J thought the conversion and Apostleship of St. 
Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration 
sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine revelation.” 

It appears that in a conversation with Gilbert West, the - 
author of an invaluable Monograph on the Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, Lord Lyttleton had expressed his opinion as 
given above, and that athis friend’s request he engaged to 
reduce to writing the argument which seemed to his own 
mind so convincing. This engagement he observed, and 
sent to his friend his “ Observations on the Conversion 
and Apostleship of St. Paul.” ; 

_ Before I proceed to sketch the argument of his letter 


152 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paud. 


I would remark that it has now been before the world for 
a hundred and seventeen years, and that while particular 
expressions and conclusions here and there have been 
questioned, no opponent of Christianity has ever written 
a reply to it. It will be well also to notice that, although 
Lord Lyttleton wrote before the birth of the modern 
school of scientific criticism of the books of the Bible, he 
takes for granted only such points as are at the present 
time regarded as established by the more recent sceptical 
writers. He postulates nothing beyond the points which 
Strauss admits, and which Renan in his more recent work 
takes as certain. I speak of admitted facts. Strauss, 
Paulus, and Renan offer varying and contradictory ex- 
planations of the facts, and they differ as to the actuality 
of certain things lying outside the facts which are taken 
for granted in the “‘ Observations ;” but, with Lord Lyttle- 
ton, they admit the existence of Saul of Tarsus—his emin- 
ent acquaintance with Judaism and addiction to its most 
severe form, that of Pharisaic scrupulosity. They admit 
his persecution of the followers of the Crucified—his 
journey to Damascus with authority from the Jewish Chief 
Priests to bind the followers of Jesus whom he might find 
in that city ; and they also admit that from some cause or 
other this red-handed opponent became a preacher of the 
faith which before he hated, and a companion and fellow 
worker with those whom he had sought to destroy. They 
regard as actual events the incidents in his after life which 
are contained in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, 
which history even Renan ascribes to a date not later 
than a.D. 80 ; and finally they assert the authenticity of 
those Epistles to which Lord Lyttleton turns for evidence 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 153 


o 


and illustration, admitting that some of those letters were 
written by Paul at least as early as the year a.D. 58. 

Thus the most destructive schemes of criticism which 
were ever applied to the books of Scripture haye, by a 
_ process of mutual destruction and antagonistical admission, 
left a residuum of confessed fact, which contains all that 
is necessary for the validity of the argument of the “ Ob- 
servations.” 

I now proceed to lay tne argument before you, not ir 
the fulness of detail given by Lord Lyttleton, but with 
sufficient fulness and accuracy to convey the general re- 
sults at which he arrives. 

The event with which we have to do is thus narrated 
_by Paul himself at Czesarea in the presence of Festus the 
Roman Governor, and Agrippa a Jewish King, and before 
many of his enemies who knew his history and were ready 
to detect any error or falsehood in his statement :— 

‘“ My manner of life from my youth, which was at the 
first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the 
Jews ; which knew me from the beginning, if they would 
_ testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I 
lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the 
hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto 
which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God 
day and night, hope to come; for which hope’s sake, 
King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should ' 
it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should 
raise the dead? I verily thought with myself, that I 
ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus 
of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and 
many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having re- 


154 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


ceived authority from the chief priests; and when they 
were put to death I gave my voice against them. And 
I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled 
them to blaspheme ; and being exceedingly mad against 
them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Where- 
upon as I went to Damascus with authority and com- 
mission from the chief priests, at mid-day, O King, I | 
saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness _ 
of the sun, shining round about me and them which 
journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the 
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in 
the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou 
me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And 
I said, Who art thou, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus 
whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy 
feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to 
make thee a minister and a witness both of these things 
which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I 
will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, 
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to 
open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, 
and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may 
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them 
which are sanctified by faith that isin me. Whereupon, 
© King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly 
vision: but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at 
Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and 
then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn 
‘to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (Acts xxv. 
4—20.) 

On another occasion, defending himself before the Jews 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul, 155 


in Jerusalem he gives in substance the same statement 
but adds other particulars :— 

“And I said, What shall Ido, Lord? And the Lord 
said unto me, Arise and go into Damascus; and there it 
shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for 
thee todo. And when I could not see for the glory of 
that light, being led by the hand of them that were with 
me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout 
man according to the law, having a good report of all the 
Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said 
unto me, Brother Saul receive thy sight. And the same 
hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of 
our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know 
His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the 
voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be His witness unto 
allmen of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why 
tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts xxii. 
10—16.) 

The same historian who records these statements of the 
convert, and was himself a companion of Paul in much 
of his life of ministry, narrates the incident in another 
chapter of the book of the Acts, mentioning other cir- 
cumstances besides those recounted by Paul in his apolo- 
gies before his enemies—as that Saul in a vision saw 
Ananias before he came to him, coming in and putting 
_ his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. And 
that when Ananias had spoken to him, “ immediately 
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales.” (Acts ix. 12 
18.) All these statements are in the book of the Acts of 
the Apostles. Statements made by Paul in letters which 


156 Lord Lyttleton on St. Parl. 


headdressed to various Churches and persons are agreeable 
to them, and they occur in letters of which Lord Lyttle- 
ton says their authenticity “‘ cannot be doubted without 
overturning all rules by which the authority and genuine- 
ness of any writings can be proved or confirmed,” and 
which since the writing of the “‘ Observations ” have been 
subjected to the test of modern criticism in the hands of 
Paulus, Strauss, Renan and others, and have stood that 
test beyond all question. Writing to the Christian 
Churches which he had founded in Galatia, Paul says, “ I 
certify you brethren that the Gospel which was preached 
af me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, 
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus 
Christ. . For ye have heard of my conversation in time 
past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I 
persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it........... But 
when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s 
womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in 
me, that I might preach Him among the heathen, imme- 
diately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” (Gal. i. 
11—16.) | 

To the Philippians he writes, “If any other man 
thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, 
I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of 
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the 
Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee ; concerning 
zeal, persecuting the Church;......... But what things 
were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.” (Philipp. 
iii. 4-7.) 

In a letter to Timothy, who was one of his converts 
and a fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he writes, “‘ I thank 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paud. 157 


Christ Jesus, our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that 
He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry ; 
who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and in- 
jurious.” (x Tim. i. 12-13.) 

Elsewhere he calls himself “ An apostle by the will of 
God, by the commandment of God our Saviour, and an 
apostle, not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ 
and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead,” 
(2: Cori, 13) Col. is 5 ;, & Tim..i.. rsGal: i. 1.) and con- 
cerning Jesus Christ, he asserts in a letter to Corinth, 
“‘ Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out 
of due time.” (1 Cor. xv. 8.) 

Here are assertions made to his enemies and his friends 
in public apologies and private letters, to Churches which 
he had gathered and to friends who were fellow workers. 
These assertions were made before and to those who had 
the best means for ascertaining their truth or falsehood. 
They were made in the emotion of public debate and in 
the quiet hours of imprisonment. They were not dis- 
proved then. They have never been disproved since. 
What is the great point which they all include? If words 
have any meaning, Paul asserts for himself, and the his- 
torian Luke asserts for him, a “miraculous call which 
made him an apostle.” 

In that call we have the beginning of a life of ministry 
lasting for, certainly, more than thirty years, during which 
period it may be followed in the book of the Acts, and 
by the light of the information contained in many 
letters which he wrote. 

The account which Christian believers give of the 
matter is that it was true,—true, not only in the incidents 


158 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


which even sceptical criticism admits, but true also in the 
miraculous element, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, the 
manifested glory of God—the voice from the brightness— 
the conversation between the prostrate persecutor and 
the exalted Jesus—the sudden blindness—the vision of 
Ananias—the message from God—and the instantaneous 
recovery of sight. 

But believers know that there are many persons who 
do not admit this, and who endeavour to account for the 
admitted facts of the case on one assumption or another 
which excludes the miraculous elements. 

Lord Lyttleton enumerates three suppositions which 
may possibly be made to account for the facts of the 
case without admitting the miraculous element, and we 
may feel secure in saying that no other solution is pos- 
sible. Our author thus states the case :— 

“It must of necessity be that the person asserting 
these things of himself, and of whom they are related in 
so authentic a manner, either was an impostor who said 
what he knew to be false with an intent to deceive ; or 
he was an enthusiast, who by the force of an over heated 
imagination imposed on himself; or he was deceived by 
the fraud of others, and all that he said must be imputed 
to the power of this deceit ; or what he declared to be 
the cause of his conversion, and to have happened in 
consequence of it, did all really happen, and therefore 
the Christian religion is a Divine revelation.” 

The three first of these suppositions are those which we 
have to examine. If they fail I shall be fully justified in 
accepting the fourth, unless my hearers will suggest some 
other solution not covered by these, a task to which I 


ee a 


eS 


Lord Lyttleton ‘on St. Paul. 159 


seriously invite them, and which they will have to per- 
form, or be led to the conclusion that Paul’s conversion 
was miraculous; and, in connexion with the events 
which followed, is a sufficient evidence that the Christian 
religion is from God. 

First then we have to examine the assumption of 
imposture, that is to say that Paul said: what he knew 
not to be true with intent to deceive. This assumption 
raises two difficulties, for it cannot be shown either that 
he could have any rational motives to undertake such an 
imposture, or that he could possibly have carried it on 
with any success by the means we know him to have 
employed. 

When we search for motives to such an imposture, we 
are shut up to one of two—either the hope of advancing 
himself in his temporal interests, credit or power ; or the 
gratification of some of his passions under the authority 
of it by the means it afforded. 

What hope of temporal interest had Saul the Perse- 
cutor when he became Paul the Apostle ? Jesus had 
been crucified as an impostor and blasphemer ; and by 
that crucifixion the Jewish conviction that He was not 
their promised Messiah and King had been confirmed. 
His disciples indeed asserted that He was risen from the 
dead, and confirmed or seemed to confirm their state- 
ment by miracles ; but the Jewish rulers were not con- 
vinced, and by imprisonment, beating and persecution 
unto death manifested their implacable rage against the 
believers. Paul concurred in these cruelties, voted for 
the death of the Christians in judicial assemblies, aided 
at their martyrdom, and in the intensity of his zeal perse- 


160 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


cutes them to strange cities, going with authority and 
commission to Damascus, to hale them to prison and 
death. Then it was and under those circumstances that 
Paul became a Christian. What wealth could he antici- 
pate? All wealth and the power of conferring wealth 
were with the party he left. Those whom he joined 
were indigent men, oppressed and kept down from all 
means of improving their fortune. Some few disciples 
were better provided than others and aided the poorer, 
but during the lifetime of Paul, the whole community 
were not more than barely supplied with the necessaries 
of life, and Paul so far from availing himself of their 
veneration for him to secure wealth, refused oftentimes, 
even in the Churches he had founded, to accept ought at 
their hands. Of this abundant evidence exists in his own 
statements made to the various Churches. Thus he 
writes twenty-four years after his conversion in a letter to 
Corinth, “Even unto this present hour we both hunger, 
and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no 
certain dwelling-place ; and labour, working with our own 
hands.” (1 Cor. iv. 11, 12.) A year later in A.D. 60, he 
writes again to Corinth thus, “I will not be burdensome 
to you: for I seek not yours, but you.” (2 Cor. xil. 14.) 
Appealing to the Christians in Thessalonica, at a some- 
what earlier date, he says, “Neither at any time used 
we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetous- 
ness; God is witness....... For ye remember brethren, 
our labours and travail, for labouring night and day, 
because we would not be chargeable to any of you, we 
preached unto you the Gospel of God.” (1 Thess. il. 5, 9-) 
And face to face with the ministers of the Ephesian 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 16r 


Church, he thus appeals to them: “TI have coveted no 
man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves 
know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessi- 
ties, and to them that were with me.” (Acts xx. 33, 34.) 

It is clear then that neither could Paul have anticipated 
wealth as the reward of submission to the Gospel, nor did 
he care to take even such support and emolument as the 
poor Christians might have been able to confer on him. 
The hope of fortune would have bound him to the Jewish 
rulers. When he broke with them he faced and he found 
- poverty. 4 

But perhaps contemning wealth he was animated by 
the prospects of credit or reputation. ‘That also rested 
with those whom he left. “The sect he embraced was 
under the greatest and most universal contempt of any 
then in the world.” What gain of reputation could 
come to the disciple of Gamaliel, the member for the 
Sanhedrim, the trusted ambassador of the rulers of the 
people, by joining himself to a party without birth, edu- 
cation or rank—whose works were attributed to imposture 
or magic, whose founder had died a felon’s death, and 
whose centraland fundamental preaching, Christ crucified, 
was to the Jew a stumbling block, and to the Greek 
foolishness ? (1 Cor. i. 23.) Experience did but confirm 
his necessary anticipation of shame and reproach. A 
quarter of a century after the vision at Damascus, he 
wrote to the Corinthians. ‘We are made as the filth of 
the world—the offscouring (repixaOappata refuse—offal), 
of all things unto this day.” (1 Cor. iv. 1 3.) Very cer- 
tainly the bubble reputation could neither have lured 
him nor rewarded him, II 


162 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


But perhaps it was the love of power—that “infirmity 
of noble minds!” ‘Power? Over whom? Over a 
flock of sheep driven to the slaughter, whose Shepherd 
Himself had been murdered a little before!’ What 
power could he dare to hope for which would be of any 
avail against the power, now energized and sharpened by 
hatred to one who had forsaken and betrayed them, which 
was on the side of those he left? Nor will his after life 
and teaching shew that he sought or regarded power. He 
affected no superiority over the other Apostles. He termed 
himself “the least of them,” (1 Cor. xv. 9), and “less 
than the least of all saints,” (Ephs. ui. 8). Did he try 
to form a party for himself or to elevate himself to primacy? 
Hear his appeal, “was Paul crucified for you? or were 
ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I 
baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any 
should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” 
(x Cor. i. 13—15.) ‘Who then is Paul, and who is 
Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the 
Lord gave to every man?” (1 Cor. iil. 5.) “ For we preach 
not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord ; and ourselves 
your servants for Jesus’ sake.” (2 Cor. iv. 5.) Moreover 
Paul affected no earthly power. “He innovated nothing 
in government or civil affairs, he meddled not with legis- 
lation, he formed no commonwealths, he raised no sedi- 
tions.” “Obedience to rulers was the doctrine he taught 
to the Churches he founded ; and what he taught he him- 
self practised.” (Rom. xiii.) It is certain that his higher 
birth, and better education and knowledge of the world 
gave him opportunities for pre-eminence ; but it is not 
less certain that he made even light of these advantages 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 163 


esteeming those with whom he was associated as “fellow- 
labourers” and “ fellow-servants,” and distinctly affirm- 
ing, ‘I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, 
but determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus 
Christ, and Him crucified. That your faith should not 
stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 
(i Cor. ii. 1, 2, 5.) 

On the itt hand, while the Gospel could not tempt 
Paul by promises of wealth or reputation, or power, and 
he found in effect that in serving Christ he embraced 
poverty and shame, he did by the very fact of submitting 
himself to Jesus as Master and Lord put from him wealth 
and reputation and power which were actually his in 
possession, or were the certain reward of continuance in 
his course as an opponent of the Gospel. 

“Upon the whole then,” says Lord Lyttleton, at this 
point, “I think I have proved that the desire of wealth, 
or fame, or power could be no motive to make St. Paul 
a convert to Christ ; but that on the contrary he must 
have been checked by that desire, as well as by the just 
apprehension of many inevitable and insupportable evils, 
from taking a part so contradictory to his past life, to all 
the principles he had imbibed, and all the habits he had 
contracted.” 

But it may be said Paul was actuated by the desire of 
gratifying some irregular passion under cover of the 
Christian religion, and by the means which it afforded. 
Undoubtedly such persons have been—men who have 
desired to set themselves free from the restraints of gov- 
ernment, law, and morality—but there is nothing in the 
teaching or in the life of the Apostle to give the slightest 


164 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


strength to this objection. “ His writings breathe nothing 
but the strictest morality, obedience to magistrates, order 
and government, with the utmost abhorrence of all licen» 
tiousness, idleness, or loose behaviour, under the cloak 
of religion.” As confessedly among the Jews, so among 
the Christians his conversation and manners are blame- 
less. (See Rom. xi. and xii.) It was no libertine 


who could appeal to those among whom he had lived, 


and whom he had won to the Gospel, “ Our exhortation 
was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor of guile. Ye 
are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and 
unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that be- 
lieve.” (1 Thes. ii. 3, 10.) “We have wronged no 
man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no 
man.” (2 Cor. vii. 2; see also 2 Cor. i. 12, and iv. 2.) 

Is it said that all this notwithstanding, Paul might 
have been an impostor in that for the sake of advancing 
the morality of the Gospel he gave himself to pious frauds 
—doing evil that he might promote good? It is true 
here also that some men have thus acted, as Lycurgus in 
the case of the Spartans, or Numa in the case of the 
Romans, who lent themselves to superstitions which they 
did not believe, that they might advance things which 
they held to be useful; but let it be noted that neither 
their superstition nor their teaching brought on them per- 
secution and ‘enmity : while in the case of Paul not only 
was the morality he taught unpalateable, but the persecu- 
tion he endured sprang from enmity to the facts cn which 
he dased the morality. Nor must it be forgotten that he 

of whom this supposition is hinted wrote these words : 
‘“‘ There are those who say, Let us do evil, that good may 
come ? whose damnation is just.” (Rom. ii. 8.) 


“~~ <a 


ee 


a a ee rT 
— rey —_ 


4 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 165 


We may then safely conclude that no rational motive 
existed which could impel Saul of Tarsus to become, as 
an impostor, Paul the Apostle ; and if any motive existed 
to such a course it must have been simply cafricrous, as 
men sometimes act on absurd impulses, they know not 
why. But to this the answer is simple. There is abso- 
lutely nothing in the conduct or the writing of the Apostle 
which can fora moment justify the thought. Nothing 
capricious or unreasoning appears in the methods by which 
he promoted the Gospel. On the contrary his is a life 
constantly guided by thoughtfulness, prudence and sus- 
tained purpose. 

But if any one, in the face of evidence given thus far, 
should still insist that Paul was in his conversion an 
impostor unmixed, or an impostor who was a strange 
specimen of a capricious fool to boot, let him consider 
that “‘he could not possibly have carried on his impos- 
ture to success by the means that we know he em- 
ployed.” 

Paul did not found Christianity. He accepted an ex- 
isting religion, and did not draw the -doctrines he pro- 
claimed from his imagination. He had not learned of 
Jesus, nor had he had any connexion with the Apostles 
except as their persecutor. How could he obtain a suffi- 
ciently accurate knowledge of their teaching but by in- 
tercourse with them? He set up as an Apostle of their 
faith, but with such ignorance of the teaching of the other 
Apostles, that either they must have been forced to 
ruin his credit or he would have ruined theirs. They 
could not but have detected the variance, in a thousand 
points, between his fancies and the teaching which they 


166 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


had received from Jesus Himself. He must therefore act 
in confederacy with the Apostles, not only to gain an 
aceurate acquaintance with the Gospel, but also to learn 
the secret arts with which they beguiled men into the 
common belief that they worked miracles. Now how did 
he incline them to communicate with him on these essen- 
tial matters? By furiously persecuting them and their 
brethren to the moment of his conversion? This he did, 
and then they immediately entrust their capital enemy 
with all the secrets of their imposture. 

“Would men so secret, as not to be drawn by the 
most severe persecutions to say one word which would 
convict them of being impostors, confess themselves such 
to their persecutor in hopes of his being their accom- 
plice ?” 

Not this only, if his conversion was unreal, and the 
events connected with it non-existent, consider the risk of 
exposure from those who journeyed with himn—employed 
with him by the Jewish rulers to extirpate Christianity 
—and breathing his old temper of opposition to the faith 
to which he now addicted himself. Again he was to be 
instructed by one at Damascus, and the teacher and _ his 
disciple met as absolute strangers each to the other; and 
this man, Ananias, ““who had goodly report of all the 
Jews who dwelt in Damascus,” and an_ excellent 
character, must have been confederate with the impostor 
in his guilt. But on the supposition of imposture how 
futile this connexion with Ananias, who appearing this 
once in the affair is never heard of afterwards—their 
whole known intercourse having been private, and Ananias 
having knowledge of his own and Paul’s dishonesty. 


z 
4 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 167 


But consider also how, some years afterwards, when 
pleading before Agrippa, in the presence of Festus, he was 
bold enough to appeal to him upon his own knowledge of 
the truth of his story, and that in the presence of many 
only too ready and desirous of convicting him of false- 
hood and crime—‘“a very remarkable proof both of the 
notoriety of the facts, and the integrity of the man, who 
with so fearless a confidence could call upon a king to 
give testimony for him even while he was sitting in judg- 
ment upon him.” 

Then, inasmuch as he must secure his recognition as 
an Apostle by the Apostles and bring them to admit him 
into a participation of all their mysteries, doctrines, and 
designs, he was necessitated to court their society and win 
their good favour: but this he did not do, for he went 
away to Arabia and then, returning to Damascus, did not 
~ go to Jerusalem till after three years (Gal. i. 17-18.) ; and 
while on the supposition of imposture, the Apostles and 
Churches must have known how and when he gained his 
knowledge of the Gospel, he ventured to assure the 
Galatians that he neither received his knowledge of men, 
nor was he taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. 
(Gal. i. 12.) Consider again how by rebuking his fellow 
Apostle Peter openly at Antioch, and defending that re- 
buke in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. ti. 11—14.) he 
incited Peter to reveal, in self-defence or in anger, any 
want of righteousness in himself. ‘ Accomplices in fraud 
are obliged to shew greater regards to each other ; such 
freedom (of rebuke) belongs to truth alone.” 

The supposition of imposture cannot be adequately 
judged unless it be also remembered that Paul was devoted 


168 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul, 


mainly to the propagation of the Gospel among the 
Gentiles, in which enterprise he would have to contend 
with four adverse influences against which the help and 
presence of God could help him, but against which, on 
the supposition of imposture, he was utterly unprovided. 
He had to contend: 1. With the policy and power of the 
magistrates. 2. With the interests, credit, and craft 
of the priests. 3. With the prejudices and passions of 
the people. 4. With the wisdom and pride of philoso- 
phers. ! 

Heathen magistrates permitted considerable laxity 
In the choice and worship of gods, but certainly did not 
endure so exclusive a system as that of Christianity, which 
not only demanded a place and recognition, but asserted 
itself as true, and alone true. It did not ask a nich in 


the Pantheon, but set to work to rase the Pantheon with — 


all its gods, and to erect on its ruins the temple of the 
true God. Judge then what chance of success Paul had 
at Ephesus, Corinth, and Athens, at all which places he 
founded Churches which presently after swept the idols 
away altogether. 

Consider also the difficulty arising from the priesthood 
who, finding their craft in danger, could wield all the 
power of the State for the repression of the teaching they 
abhorred. ‘These men might tolerate the easy atheistical 
philosopher who would be content with theorizing 
against religion and yet maintain the popular religions 
as useful cheats ; but they would have no patience with 
the aggressive system which Paul propounded, which 
endured no rival near its throne. 

And again consider the difficulties springing from 


- 


eS ly ao 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 169 


the prejudices and passions of the people. In Judea 
the voice of the people often restrained the violence 
of the rulers in their opposition to Christianity ; but in 
the case of the Gentiles, intense and violent prejudices 
existed in favour of the popular religions, and were more 
than: ever intense when opposing anything taught by a 
Jew—one of a nation on whom the then world looked 
with unutterable scorn. Such an one carried only new 
ideas when he appealed to the Gentiles, and told them 
that Jesus was the Christ of God. They expected no 
Christ, they allowed no such Scriptures as those to which - 
Paul made his appeal. ‘They had to be taught the New 
Testament, but were ignorant of the book of the old 
covenant on which the Apostles turned for evidence when 
seeking to convince the Jew. There was not even the 
common ground of Monotheism on which Paul and the 
Gentile populations could take their stand. Thus he 
must come before them with no political, or social, or 
religious authority, and bid them surrender the idolatry 
which gratified their tastes, ministered to their passions, 
and satisfied their lower nature. He bade them forsake 
these idolatries for the spiritual worship of “one invisible 
God, and to aggept salvation by the death and sufferings 
of a crucified Jew ”—to their view such an one as a cop- 
demned criminal execuied at Newgate would be to us. 

To these accumulated difficulties must be added those 
springing from the wisdom and pride of the philosophers. 
They had prejudices of their own still more repugnant to 
the doctrines of the Gospel than those of the vulgar, more 
deeply rooted, and more obstinately fixed in the mind. 
The wisdom on which they prided themselves—“ their 


170 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


vain metaphysical speculations, their logical subtleties— 
their endless disputes—their high flown conceits of the 
perfection and self-sufficiency of human wisdom—their 
dogmatical positiveness about doubtful opinion—their 
sceptical doubts about the most clear and certain truths” 
made the soil in which a humble stranger, a despised 
Jew, and in their eyes a contemptible apostate had to sow 
the seeds of the doctrine of Christ. “If St. Paul had 
had nothing to trust to but his own natural faculties, his 
own understanding, knowledge, and eloquence, could he 
have hoped to be, singly, a match for all theirs united 
against him? Could a teacher unheard of before, from 
an obscure and unlearned part of the world, have with- 
stood the authority of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno, 
Arcesilaus, Carneades, and all the great names which 
held the first rank of human wisdom ?” 

“From ail this it may I think be concluded that no 
buman means employed by St. Paul in his design of con- 
verting the Gentiles were, or could be, adequate to the 
great difficulties he had to contend with, or to the suc- 
cess that we know attended his work; and we can im 
reason ascribe that success to.no other cause but the 
power of God, going along with and aiding his ministry, 
because no other was equal to the effects.” 

And on this follows the conclusion, that whatever Paul 
may have been besides, he was no impostor. 

But while many yield this point, they are yet unable to 
accept the miraculous element in the history of his con- 
version ; they fall back on the assumption that he “was 
an enthusiast, who by the force of an overheated imagi- 
nation imposed on himself.” Probably this opinion will 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Pau. 171 


impose on men only so long as they rest in generals, and 
fancy to themselves an enthusiast who is void of the 
qualities which constitute enthusiasm. The general 
ingredients of enthusiasm, as men use the word, are great. 
heats of temper, melancholy, ignorance, credulity and 
vanity, or self conceit. But of all these one only, that of 
a quick and warm disposition, is to be found in Paul as: 
it was in the Gracchi, in Cato, in Brutus, and in many of 
the best and wisest of men. And even this quality 
never had such command of the mind of Paul as to rule 
and darken his understanding. The best test is this, 
that in things where principle was not concerned, he 
was so easy as to ‘‘become all things to all men.’” 
(1 Cor. ix. 20, 22.) And that in moments of the most 
trying and exciting character he manifested prudence, 
and had regard to the civilities and decorums of society, 
as appears clearly in his behaviour when defending him- 
self before Agrippa, Felix, and Festus. His was a zeal 
ever tempered by prudence. 

Where again is the proof that he was a sour, melan- 
choly enthusiast ? Remorse he felt indeed for his former 
life as a persecutor, but it led him only to a new life of 
unwearied and cheerful labour. He inflicted on himself 
_ no gloomy penances or extravagant mortifications. His 
holiness was the simplicity of a good life and the industry 
of a devoted Apostle. He bore sufferings cheerfully, but 
he did not court them—even pleading his Roman citizen- 
ship to avoid being beaten, and at Athens he avoided 
_the application of a capital law which forbad the intro- 
duction of a new god by prudently laying hold on the 
presence of an altar to the Unknown God, and thus con- 


172 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


necting his teaching of the living and true God with a 
recognised but unknown being: “whom therefore ye 
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” (Acts xvil. 
and Josephus cont. Apion. Book II. Ch. 37.) Paul 
indeed desired ‘‘to depart and to be with Christ,” which 
he knew to be better than his life of sorrow and suffering ; 
but he sought not to die, and was ready to remain with 
the Churches he had founded, because his presence and 
leadership was an advantage to them. Willing to labour, 
ready to rest, and impressing the same condition of mind 
on multitudes, he cannot in any fairness be called a 
melancholy enthusiast. 

Again is there proof that Paul had the mark of igno- 
rance? Hardly so when he was master of Jewish and 


Grecian learning, and in this respect commanded the | 


enforced commendation of Festus, and on their own 
ground could cope with the Athenians on Areopagus. 
Nor is credulity—as distinguished from assent to truth on 
sutficient evidence—observable in Paul. He was in fact 
slow and hard of belief. The miracles done by the 
Saviour, the resurrection of Him who was crucified and 
buried, miracles wrought by Peter and John—even that 
well known and much canvassed marvel the healing the 
lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii.) 
had not persuaded him to believe. Other miracles and 
several proclamations of the Gospel (Acts v. 18, 32), with 
the eloquent defence of Stephen before the council had 
left him untouched—left him to attend the martyrdom ot 
. Stephen as consenting to his death (Acts vill. and ix.)— 
left him with his zeal against Christ only embittered and 
deepened, so that he set forth to Damascus, “ breathing 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul.’ 173 


out threatenings and slaughter” against the disciples. 
All evidence up to this point he had resisted, “so that 
his mind far from being disposed to a credulous faith, or 
a too easy reception of any miracle worked in proof of 
the Christian religion, appears to have been barred 
against it by the most obstinate prejudices, as much as 
any man’s could possibly be; and from hence we may 
fairly conclude, that nothing less than the irresistible 
evidence of his own senses, clear from the possibility of 
doubt, could have overcome his unbelief.” 

But these points failing, may not the position and work 
of Paul be accounted for by self-conceit, a quality which 
often places men in extraordinary circumstances, and 
urges them to amazing doings? With high conceits of 
their importance, such men may mistake the workings of 
their own folly as the will of God, and may persuade 

themselves that, as favourites of heaven, they are the 
recipients of Divine revelations. Such were Montanus, 
Santa Theresa, Catharine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi, and 
others famous in the martyrology and sanctology of the 
Romish Church. But was Paul such an one, eaten up 
by self-conceit of knowledge, goodness and favour : vain 
of personal gifts,higher genius, or Divine communications ? 
Listen to his words to the Ephesians, the Corinthians, 
and to his beloved fellow-worker Timothy. I who am 
“less than the least of all saints,” (Eph. iii. 8.) “I am 
the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to be called 
an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” 
(1 Cor. xv. 9.) “Jesus Christ came into the world to 
save sinners, of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this 
cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ 


174, Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them 
which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” 
(1 Tim. i. 15, 16.) Only once does he use language 
opposed to this, saying, ‘I was not a whit behind the 
very chiefest Apostles.” (2 Cor. xi. 5.) And then the 
‘very safety of the Corinthian Church—their deliverance 
from false teachers—necessitated a strong assertion of his 
authority among them ; and even then he does it in such 
a way that his very boasting becomes the most evident 
humility, and does in no wise counteract his deliberate 
stdtements to the same Church. (Vide 2 Cor. xi. 16-19, 30; 
2 Cor. xii. 2, 6, 7.) “Who then is Paul and who is 
. Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the 
Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos 
watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither 
is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, 
but God that giveth the increase.” ‘By the grace of 
‘God I am what I am, and His grace which was bestowed 
upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abun- 
dantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God 
which was with me.” (2 Cor. xii, 1-5; 1 Cor. lil. 5-7; 
1 Cor. xv. to.) And lastly, let us listen to the lesson 
which he laboured to impress on his followers, exalting 
a self renouncing love above all other things. 

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of 
angels and have not love, I am become as sounding 
brass or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the 
gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all 
knowledge ; and though I have all faith, so that I could 
remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. 
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and 


Lord Lytileton on St. Paul. 175 


though I give my body to be burned and have not love, 
it profiteth me nothing.” (x Cor. xiii. 1-4.) He who can 
read this and trace the example which illustrates it in the 
life of the Apostle, and yet attribute his conversion and 
his Apostleship to self-conceit, must either mistake the 
sense of words, or be very determined to bring the 
Apostle in guilty. Since therefore we do not find in the 
writings or acts of Paul those characteristics which mark 
the hot headed enthusiast, we may conclude he was not 
such an one. But even did we find in him these quali- 
ties of mere enthusiasm it can be proved, “That he 
could not possibly have imposed on himself by any 
power of enthusiasm, either in regard to the miracle 
which caused his conversion, or to the consequential 
effects of it, or to some other circumstances which he 
bears testimony to in his epistles.” Imagination is 
doubtless very strong, but it is strong in the direction 
‘imprinted on it by opinions held at the time of its work 
ing. Now Paul on his journey to Damascus was un- 
doubtedly possessed of opinions utterly hostile to Chris- 
tianity, and his passions were at that time inflamed by 
the irmtating consciousness of his past treatment ot 
them, the pride of continuing in a line of conduct on 
which he had voluntarily and publicly entered, and the 
credit and praise that line of conduct obtained from 
him among the rulers of his nation. 

In this state of mind visions, marvels, alarms, and 
any other thing acting on his imagination only, would 
not undo the whole current and tide of his life and his 
opinions. Everything within him hurried him along in 
opposition to Jesus Christ ; and when his imagination is 


176 Lord Lyttleton on St. Pail. 


impressed it is in a direction utterly hostile to his every 
opinion, passion, and line of conduct. But even were 
this self deception under the force of mere imagination 
possible in Paul, how can it be explained that his fancy 
should be so real to others; that his companions also, 
nothing actually happening, should see the light and 
hear the voice, and fall from their horses, and be speech- 
less with terror.” (Acts ix. 3; Acts xxi. 9; Acts 1x. 7; 
Acts xxvl. 14.) 

But it may be said, ‘‘something did happen. A storm 
broke, or a meteor of unusual brilliancy fell.” But how 
did this storm frame articulate voice and carry on a con- 
versation in Hebrew? and how can the meteoric light 
have given visions to Paul and Ananias simultaneously, 
and in such wise that each was led to a course of action 
fitting in with that of the other, and exactly correspond- 
ing ; and how could the thunder and the meteoric light 
combined have both struck Paul blind and have given to 
Ananias the power of restoring his sight suddenly and 
effectually? Moreover the fact of Paul’s conversion and 
the miracle of Ananias were but parts in a long series of 
wonderful events. Could imagination thus excited shew 
to Paul the vision of Jesus Christ many times? Coulda 
power of marvel-working, thus originated, have enabled 
Paul to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles from Jeru- 
salem round'about to Illyricum (that is to say in Judea, 
Samaria, Galilee, Syria, the Lesser Asia, Pontus Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Bithynia, in Greece, and away to the confines 
of Northern Italy), ‘with mighty signs and wonders 
wrought by the power of the Spirit of God, to make the 
Gentiles obedient to his preaching.” (Acts ix. 17, 


‘ 


Lord Lytileton on St. Paul. 077 


18; Xxil., 13, 17, 185 xi, xxl, xxii, and xxiii; 
and Rom. xv. 18, 19.) “Surely such a series 
of miraculous acts, all consequential to and depen- 
dent on the first revelation, puts the truth of that 
revelation beyond the possibility of doubt or deceit.” 
The supposition is that Paul was an enthusiastic mad- 
man; but “if the difficulties which have been shewn to 
have obstructed that work which he did were such as the 
ablest irapostor could not overcome, how much more 
insurmountable were they toamadman?” Indeed, how- 
ever difficult it may be to account for the conversion and 
Apostleship of Paul on the supposition that he was an 
impostor, it is a harder task to give an account of things 
on the assumption that he was a mad enthusiast. His 
“madness” in its unreasoning, honest blundering did 
things too wonderful. His fellow travellers, Ananias at 
Damascus, Sergius Paulus the prudent deputy at Paphos, 
Elymas the sorcerer, Eutychus at Troas, the priests and 
people at Lystra, the jailor at Philippi, the barbarian 
Maltese, Erastus the city treasurer at Corinth, and Dio- 
nysius the learned areopagite at Athens, must have all 
been equally mad, and mad with marvellous uniformity ; 
mad too with a madness which gave feet to the lame, 
eyes to the blind, healing to the sick, freedom to iron- 
bound: captives, and life to the dead; mad with a mad. 
ness which subdued to the faith of Christ men and wo- 
men of many nations, of various religions, of every kind 
of intellectual and educational degree, and of all ranks of 
society. Men here and there however still ascribe to im- 
magination that which Paul ascribes to the power of God, 
not perceiving that “ they ascribe to imagination the same 
omnipotency which he ascribes to Ged.” 


ee 


I2 


178 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 


One other enquiry remains. Was Paul the victim of 
others’ deceit, and can all he said and did be referred to 
the power of that deceit. 

“But I,” to quote the words of Lord Lyttleton, “need — 
say little to show the absurdity of this supposition. It 
was morally impossible for the disciples of Christ to con- 
ceive such a thought as that of turning His persecutor 
into His Apostle, and to do this by a fraud in the very 
instant of his greatest fury against them and their Lord. 
But could they have been so extravagant as to conceive 
such a thought, it was physically impossible for them to 
execute it in the manner we find his conversion to have 
been effected. Could they produce a light in the air which 
at mid-day was brighter than that of the sun? Could 
they make Saul hear words from out of that light which 
were not heard by the rest of the company? Could they 
make him blind for three days after that vision ? and then 
make scales fall from off his eyes, and restore him to his 
sight by a word? Beyond dispute no fraud could do 
these things ; but much less still could the fraud of others 
produce fines miracles subsequent to his conversion, in 
which he was not passive but active, which he did him- 
self and appeals to in his epistles as a proof of his Divine 
mission. I shall then take it for granted that he was not 
deceived by the frauds of others, and that what he said 
of himself cannot be imputed to the power of that deceit, 
no more than to wilful imposture or to enthusiasm; and 
then it follows that what he related to have been the 
cause of his conversion, and to have happened in conse- 
quence of it, did all really happen, THEREFORE THE 
CHRISTIAN RELIGION 1s A DIVINE REVELATION.” 


Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 179 


To the mind of the Christian believer the conclusion 
is absolute: but even in the case of the sincere but 
sceptical enquirer, it ought to carry so much at least of 
force and probability as will make him very cautious and 
watchful before he rejects it ; and will lead him to give a 
truly humble and kindly attention to the exhortation of 
Paul, which in all love and brotherly kindness, I adopt as 
my own, ‘‘ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
shalt be saved.” 


ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN THE MORAL 
TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY THE 
REV... C. A.“ROW, MLA, 


Prebendary of St. Paul's, 
sluthor of “ The Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration,’ “The Yesus of 
the Evangelists,” “* The Moral Teaching of the N-w Testament,” etc. 


Mleged Ditticulties in the Moral 
Ceaching of the Mew Testament, 


N treating of this subject within the limits of an 
hour’s lecture, it will be necessary for me only to 
deal with objections which are urged by writers of high 
literary reputation. It would be simply impossible to 
meet every conceivable objection in the space allotted to 
me. Nor is it necessary that I should do so, for we may 
conclude that difficulties which eminent writers, who do 
not believe in Christianity, pass over in silence, exist only 
in the imagination of those who adduce them. Just in 
the same way it would be quite a legitimate answer to 
make to me, who am profoundly ignorant of the various 
mechanical arts, if I were to attempt to instruct an ex- 
perienced workman how to do his work better,—Pray 
try to master the very elements of the trade, and try your 
own hand at it, before you presume to lecture us, who 
have been in the business all our lives. 
There are two well-known writers in this country, whom 
we are quite ready to recognise as men of unquestionable 
ability, who have raised exceptions against certain aspects 


184. | The Alleged Difficulties in ‘the 


of the moral teaching of the New Testament—Mr. F. 
W. Newman and the late Mr. J. S. Mill. Among other 
things, the first of these has published a tract, evidently 
intended to be widely circulated, directly inculpating it ; 
and the second has published opinions which, while he 
directly asserts that he does not think that there is any- 
thing in its teaching contrary to sound morality, yet 
he implies that he considers it defective. 

On one point I cordially agree with Mr. Newman, and 
I solicit the attention of all unbelievers to it, for it is 
one which in controversy they greatly overlook. ‘ Our 
sole concern,” says he, “here is with the New Testament 
as it stands, as it is popularly received, and is read in 
the Church.” This is the only correct principle. Let it 
be understood therefore, that in dealing with the moral 
teaching of the New Testament, we are are not concerned 
with that of anything which stands outside its pages. 
We have neither to discuss the practice of Christians, 
nor to deal with the teaching of any other book. Mr. 
Newman’s principle is thoroughly sound: I only regret 
that he does not always abide by it. 

The following passage will explain Mr. Newman’s 
general opinions on this subject: 

“Tf one is asked to specify the defects in the New 
Testament morality, the difficulty of reply is caused by the 
too great abundance of material. The defects are not 
partial, but total. They pervade the entire moral system, 
and are the greater in each part, the greater its im- 
portance. Fully to enumerate the defects would be 
equivalent to writing a complete moraltreatise. . . It 
must be added, that the defectiveness here complained of 


Morel Teaching of the New Testament. 185 


is sometimes that of total omission ; sometimes that of 
precepts contrary to those oF iets and truth. In fact, 
the latter is the common case.’ 

I think that it will be conceded that Mr. Mill was a far 
more profound philosopher than Mr. Newman. On the 
most important portion of this charge he is hopelessly at 
issue with him. Having pointed out the clear distinction 
which exists between the moral teaching of the New 
Testament and what Mr. Mill designates ‘“ Theological 
Morality,”—by which he means various systems of morality 
evolved during the centuries of the Church’s history, and 
which he charges with various defects,—Mr. Mill says: “I 
am as far as anyone from pretending that these defects are 
necessarily inherent in Christian Ethics, in any manner in 
which it can be conceived ; or that the many requisites of 
a complete moral doctrine which it does not contain do 
not admit of being reconciled with it. Far less would I 
insinuate this of the doctrines and precepts of Christ 
himself. I believe that the sayings of Christ contain all 
that I can see any evidence of their having been 
intended to be; that they are irreconcilable with nothing 
which a comprehensive morality requires ; that every- 
thing which is excellent in Ethics may be brought within 
them with no greater violence to their language than has 
been done to it, by all who have attempted to deduce 
from them any practical system whatever.” (Essay on 
“ Liberty.”) 

Mr. Newman affirms that principles contrary to truth 
and right preponderate in the teaching of the New 
Testament; and in making this affirmation he includes 
many of the sayings of Jesus Christ. Mr. Mill, however, 


186 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


is of opinion that “the sayings of Christ are irreconcil- 
able with nothing which a comprehensive morality re- 
quires.” No contradiction can be more complete. Mr. 
Mill is certainly the higher authority on moral questions. 

Still, however, I apprehend that they agree in con- 
sidering that the moral teaching of the New Testament 
is defective—z.e., that it does not fulfil the requirements 
of our present form of civilization. Yet there is an 
obscurity in Mr, Mill’s language on this subject. Strictly 
speaking, he is charging this defect on “ Theological 
Morality” alone ; but as at page go he refers expressly to 
the New Testament, I think that it will be the most candid 
course for me to conclude that he intended to include ~ 
the teaching of the New Testament in this charge of 
deficiency, while he expressly absolves it from that of 
immorality. 

Before examining the positions of either of these 
writers, I must lay down what I mean when I use the 
expression ‘‘a system of moral teaching,” and when I 
affirm that that in the New Testament is adequate to 
meet the requirements of every stage of civilization. By 
this expression is frequently understood not only a body 
of principles, but of precepts, which should give suitable 
directions as to what is the correct line of duty in every 
emergency in which we can be placed. I restrict it to 
a body of principles, from which the correct line of duty 
may be evolved in all special cases ; and I also include 
under the term those various moral aa spiritual forces, 
powers, and motives which are adequate to make the moral 
law predominate over the mind of man. If I understand 
Mr. Newman rightly, he is of opinion that the New 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 187 


Testament ought also to have contained a body of precepts: 
elaborated so as to meet the various circumstances of 
life, if it is to be entitled to be considered an effective 
moral guide to man in every stage of civilization. The 
number of questions which he considers that it ought to 
have solved is very numerous. Thus he complains that 
its political teachings are very obscure and inadequate. 
He charges it with having omitted several most important 
questions of individual and social morality altogether, 
or with having dealt with them on false principles. 
Judging by the special instances adduced by him, he 
seems to consider that it ought to have contained solu- 
tions of all the individual, social, and political questions 
of morality which can arise. I am not sure that he would 
not add a complete body of casuistry. I reply that a 
system of moral teaching may be complete and wholly 
adequate which leaves unattempted the various things of 
which Mr. Newman demands that the New Testament 
should contain a complete solution. 

I am happy to say that the pages of the New 
Testament make no pretensions whatever to solve every 
conceivable detail of duty or doubtful moral question 
which may arise. If they had done so, it would have 
constituted an objection against it far more formidable 
than the strongest which can be urged by unbelievers. 
The writers would have attempted to do what is impossible 
to be done, and what, if done, would degrade man from 
a free moral agent into a machine. In proof that it 
makes no such pretension, I shall quote the authority of 
Mr. Mill, “If it [Christian Morality] means,” says he, 
“the teaching of the New Testament, I wonder that 


188 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


anyone who derives his knowledge of this from the book 
itself, can suppose that it was announced, or intended, as 
a complete doctrine of morals.” In this expression of 
wonder I heartily concur, whether the contrary has been 
affirmed by Christians or unbelievers. It contains all the 
great principles of moral teaching, but leaves the elabora- 
tion of them, and their application to specific cases, to 
be determined by the enlightened conscience of the 
individual. 

Yet such an attempt has been made, and the result 
only shows that itis incapable of realization. The Jewish 
Talmud is a movement in that direction. Its bulk is about 
fourteen folio volumes, yet it contains very little which is 
applicable to our Western civilization. ‘The Scribes and 
Pharisees, the predecessors of the Talmudists, expended 
their powers in refinements on moral duties, which led to 
a disregard of the weightiest obligations. Many Christian 
writers have been guilty of the same folly, into which 
heathen ones had fallen before them. ‘The treatise of the . 
- great Roman orator Cicero, entitled “De Officiis,” gives us 
many specimens of this mode of raising curious questions 
on moral subjects, as for instance whether, in case of a loss 
at sea, a man should save a worthless slave or a valuable 
horse ; whether a wise man when in the water should 
wrench a plank from a fool ; also, in case two wise men 
are shipwrecked, and there is only a single plank sufficient 
to support one, which of the two should seize the plank, 
and which should yield it to the other. The mode of 
settling this last question is somewhat curious. The two 
wise men are to determine in the water whose life is most 
valuable for his own sake or for that of the republic. 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 189 


Having settled this rather complicated problem in the 
water, the man whose life is the most valuable is to 
retain the plank, and the other to go quietly to the 
bottom. Such questions will only be discussed where 
there is little or no moral earnestness. 

Instead of attempting ‘to settle questions of casuistry, 
or to lay down rules of conduct, which can be applied 
mechanically to the ever-varying circumstances of life, 
Mr. Mill says, and says truly, ‘‘ The Gospel always refers 
to a pre-existing morality, and confines its precepts to the © 
particulars in which that morality was to be corrected or 
superseded by a wider and a higher.” He would have 
described the case more correctly, if he had said that it 
contents itself with laying down the great fundamental 
principles of duty, and then appeals to the conscience 
enlightened by its teaching, as the only adequate guide 
to direct us as to what is the course of duty in the 
innumerable and often conflicting circumstances in which 
we are placed. Instead of attempting to lay down a set 
of rules as guides to conduct, it announces the utter 
worthlessness of such systems. ‘The seat of all sound 
morality it places in man’s spirit. Its precepts are 
intended as illustrations of its great principles under 
existing circumstances. Above all things let it be 
observed that Christianity professes to be a law of 
liberty, and not of slavish adhesion to a mere literal 
commandment. 

Still, however, the New Testament professes to be, 
and is a moral guide adequate to meet the wants of man 
in every condition of civilization. How then, ii the 
case be as I have stated, is this possible? Ought not it 


190 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


to contain what Mr. Mill designates a complete system 
of Ethical doctrine? I answer that it effects its purpose 
much better by laying down great principles, which 
embrace every possibility of moral obligation. It also 
brings a number of mighty forces to bear on the heart 
and the spirit of man. It directs its appeals to every 
principle of our nature which can be enlisted into the 
service of holiness. When these principles are kindled 
into activity, it constitutes the enlightened conscience a 
law to itself. 

I will at once lay down the great principles which 
constitute the essence of Christian morality, and which, 
when they have thoroughly penetrated our being, are 
adequate to be the guide of life. First, the moral law as 
proclaimed by Jesus Christ is announced as consisting 
of two great commandments, which are the foundations of 
all moral obligation. ‘The first of these flows from man’s 
relationship to his Creator. Being His creature, he is 
bound to love Him with every affection which he pos- 
sesses, and to devote to Him his entire being. By laying 
down this as the great fundamental principle of His 
teaching, Jesus Christ did what the whole of the ancient 
philosophers failed to accomplish. He brought to bear 
on man’s moral nature the whole force of his religious 
being, and presented the idea of duty on the widest 
and most comprehensive principle. On this duty of 
‘man to God, He erected the second great principle 
on which all obligation between man and man must 
rest, and which embraces every possible duty in its 
all-comprehensive sweep, ‘‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
as thyself.” He then proclaimed that the idea of neigh 


a 


LO EE 


Mora! Teaching of the New Testament. IQI 


bourhood as between man and man was not limited by 
the ties of country, citizenship, sect, or race, but that its 
essence was, man wherever met with in need of help. 
Neighbourhood in Christ’s teaching consists in the power 
of performing acts of kindness on the one hand, and the 
presence of necessity on the other. This great law of 
obligation of man to man was not limited by one single 
selfish consideration. This is plainly and definitely 
taught in the parable of the man who fell among thieves, 
in which Jesus Christ broke down all the narrow distinc- 
tions which separated man from man in the ancient 
world. Let it be particularly observed that He has ex- 
tended this obligation by further teaching that Christians 
are bound to love one another, not only as they love 
themselves, but as He has loved them. So wide has He 
laid down the principle of obligation. 

This principle of self-sacrifice is the central position of 
the moral teaching of the New Testament. It is one 
most wide and all-embracing. I will cite a single passage 
as an illustration of it. ‘None of us,” says St. Paul, 
“liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for 
whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; and whether we 
die, we die to the Lord: whether we live therefore, or 
die, we are the Lord’s ; for to this end Christ both died 
and rose, that He might be the Lord of the dead and 
living.” This principle is adequate to determine every 
question of moral obligation. It demands the most 
absolute sacrifice of self in the service of Jesus Christ. 
If a doubt arises whether this or that ‘line of conduct is a 
_ duty, or what is the amount of self-sacrifice which is 
required at our hands in the discharge of it, we have 


192 Zhe Alleged Difficulties tn the 


only to ask ourselves two questions, and the answer will 
at once determine the line of conduct which ought to be 
pursued, and the degree of self-sacrifice required. The 
first of these questions is, What do I wish that another 
should do to me, if I were in his place? ‘The second is, 
To what extent has Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself for 
me? I owea similar sacrifice of self to Him. In what- 
ever position of life a Christian may be placed, he is 
Christ’s, bound to discharge every duty which it requires 
for His sake; and that not grudgingly, but measured 
only, as to the extent of the obligation, by the self- 
sacrifice of Jesus Christ for him. 

It is quite evident that both Mr. Mill and Mr. 
Newman have overlooked this great and fundamental 
principle of the moral teaching of the New Testament, 
without the deepest attention to which it is impossible to 
form a correct estimate of its scope and bearing. At any 
rate I can find no reference to it in their estimate of its 
moral teaching. It is to this that their complaint that 
its teaching is inadequate in reference to the require- 
ments of advancing civilization is due. I maintain, on 
the contrary, that it is adequate to guide us on every 
question of individual, social, or political morality which 
can arise. Jesus Christ claims, not only our reli- 
gious duties, but every portion of our secular calling. 
The distinction between them is destroyed by Chris- 
tianity. In its view all secular duties have become 
religious ones. Christ demands as His the entire life, 
nothing short of it. The Christian is to continue in the 
calling in which he is called of God. There is no 
injunction in the New Testament that aman, when he 


ee ee 


Ce eT 


en 


i 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 193 


became a Christian, was to leave his secular calling, 
unless it positively ministered to vice. On the contrary, 
it contains many exhortations to discharge it faithfully as 
to the Lord, and not unto man. Whenever good is to 
be done, he is bound to do it. Whenever the condition 
of man can be ameliorated, the morality of Christianity 
teaches that we are bound to exert our utmost efforts to 
effect it, as due not only to our brother man, but unto the 
Lord. “Ye are not your own,” writes St. Paul; “ there- 
fore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which 
are God’s.” 

But while the New Testament appeals to this as the 
fundamental groundwork of its teaching, let it be ob- 
served that it has invoked every other principle of our 
nature which can be enlisted into the service of holiness. 
In proof of this I quote a single passage, but it is a very 
comprehensive one. “Finally,” writes St. Paul, “ what- 
Soever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, 
whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, 
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are of good 
report ; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, 
think of these things.” Here we find the principle of 
truth, of honour, of justice, of the morally beautiful, 
that of the approbation of society, man’s love of excel- 
lence, and even his desire for praise, appealed to, to ex- 
cite us in the pursuit of what is good and virtuous. I ask 
whether any teaching can be more comprehensive ? 

It is satisfactory to observe that Mr. Mill deals with 
the teaching of the New Testament in a spirit very dif. 
ferent from that of Mr. Newman. While the Tract before. 
me is an attack upon it of the strongest character, it does 

13 


194 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


not contain a single allusion to the fact that its teaching 
is based on the widest and most comprehensive princi- 
ples which I have enumerated, and which are indehbly 
stamped on its pages. Yet to judge the teaching of a 
book, without estimating the principles on which it 1s 
founded, is impossible. They assign to the subordinate 
details their entire meaning. I ask emphatically whether 
such a mode of dealing with questions can be conducive 
to the interests of truth P 

I will now deal with as many of the special objections 
before me as my space will allow. Mr. Newman objects 
that the views of the writers of the New Testament as to 
the nearness of the future world must have rendered 
them inadequate moral teachers. I believe that it is an 
idea widely spread among unbelievers, and is certainly 
entertained by very many in this hall, that a Christian’s 
interest in this life is so short, and that his desire to 
effect his own salvation ought to be so absorbing, as 
necessarily to make the consistent Christian indifferent 
to all the higher interests of humanity. 

I reply, that this opinion is not founded on anything 
contained in the New Testament. Whatever may be the 
assertions of unbelievers with respect to the expectation 
of the followers of Jesus Christ as to the speedy end of 
the present dispensation, it is a plain fact that many of 
our Lord’s parables, in which He explained the nature of 
His kingdom, assert that it would be one of a slow and 
gradual growth, and that human nature would become 
penetrated with Christian principles only by means of a 
slow and gradual progress. Of this the parables in Matt. 
xiii. are a striking example. 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 195 


Whatever views may be entertained about the relative 
nearness or distance ofthe period of the end, there is one 
very palpable fact on which we must all agree, that 
human life is short. In a moral point of view there can 
be little difference whether we are firmly persuaded that 
life is short, or the coming of Christ’s kingdom near. It 
is a plain fact both to Christians and unbelievers, whether 
they like to think about it or not, that at best our time 
for doing any important work here is very limited, and that 
Our interest in earthly things may pass away at any hour. . 
The objection applies to both alike. 

Next, Christianity expressly teaches that a man’s: 
interest in the world to come will be best provided for by 
a diligent discharge of the duties of the present. Where is 
it said, I ask, that a man should neglect his duties to 
save his soul? On the contrary, he is expressly told that 
his best mode of promoting his interests in the world to 
come, is by the diligent discharge of every known duty in 
the present life. Does not the New Testament expressly 
teach that every opportunity of doing good, every faculty, 
and every endowment, is a stewardship entrusted to the 
Christian by his Master? Surely, if there is a great deal 
to be done, and but a short time to do it in, the harder 
one works, the better. Ifa railway station is a mile off, 
and I have only fourteen minutes before the arrival of the 
train, I think this an urgent reason for mending my pace. 
As the parable teaches, it is only the slothful servant who 
hides his talent in the earth. I fully concede that the 
New Testament lays down that the next world is vastly 
more important than the present one. So is the subse- 
quent period of our lives, compared with the interval of 


196 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


five or six years which we pass at school. But those who | 
have spent their school-days in idleness have inflicted an 
irreparable damage on their interests in their future life, and 
frequently the deepest repentance is unable to repair the 
mischief, The more important are our interests in the 
world to come, the more important is it for us rightly to 
use the present life as a preparation for it. 

But Mr. Newman further observes: “That St. Paul’s 
teaching should not be definite concerning the rights and 
duties of citizens, concerning war, concerning slavery, and 
the rights of man, followed necessarily from his belief that 
the end of all things was so close at hand. No time was 
left to improve the world, to regenerate politics, to en- 
franchise slave castes; radical change was impossible ; 
palliation of evil was only to be thought of.” 

I reply, first, that if it is necessary to render a system 
of moral teaching an adequate guide, that it should con- 
tain definite information on all these points, it would 
involve the production of a library of considerable size. 
Nor is this all: it would be necessary that it should be 
constantly enlarged, to meet the ever varying circum- 
stances of our political and social life. Yet this is really 
what it would have been necessary that the writers of the 
New Testament should have done if the absence of these 
subjects is to be viewed as an objection against the ade- 
quacy of their teaching. They have acted more wisely 
by enunciating great principles of morality which render 
the entering on such subjects entirely unnecessary. 

Next, as I have observed, the shortness of the time 
is an additional reason for the diligent discharge of duty. 
Its teaching is, that duties are to be discharged at all 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 197 


hazards, without reference to results, The measuring 
duties by results belongs to the modern utilitarian gospel, 
and not to that of Jesus Christ. Mr. Newman imagines 
that no man with the views which he attributes to the 
first Christians could be in favour of radical changes, but 
would only attempt palliations of existing evils. I find 
this nowhere hinted in the pages of the New Testament. 
The opponents of Christianity in the first century took 
a very different view of the subject, and mistook the 
apostles for a species of radicals. The charge which 
they preferred against them was, “Those who have 
turned the world upside down, have come hither also.” 
Christianity really seeks to effect a most radical change 
in human nature. 

There is doubtless a great diversity of view between 
the writers of the New Testament and modern unbe- 
lievers as to the most effectual mode of acting on man. 
Both alike are animated by a desire to effect a radical 
change in his condition, and seek to effect his elevation. 
The one were of opinion that the right way to effect this 
was to begin with that which is inward, and to work from 
the inward to his outward condition. The other think 
that the correct method of procedure is to reverse this 
process. The difference is one of method, not of prin- 
ciple I assert that all experience is in favour of that 
pursued by Christ and His apostles, and that all great 
and beneficial changes have been effected by bringing 
mighty forces to bear on man’s inmost being, and that 
all moral and spiritual regeneration must originate from 
within. 

I will now take Mr. Newman’s points seriatim, 


198 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


If I understand him rightly, he considers that the New 
Testament ought to have laid downa positive doctrine, as 
to what is right and wrong in our political relations. Onthe 
contrary, 1 have always considered that its abstinence from 
attempting to do this constitutes one of the particular ex- 
cellences of its teaching. By this alone it has been able to 
accommodate itsteaching tothe universal condition of man. 
What would havebeen theresult if it had been the duty of the 
Church of Jesus Christ to meddle with political questions? 
When it has unwisely attempted to do this the results 
have been disastrous. Nothing is more certain than that 
the differentraces of men require different forms of political 
government. The laws and constitutions which fit one 
nation do not suit another, just in the same way as it is. 
impossible to manufacture a coat which will fit every man’s 
figure and size. We have had abundance of evidence 
that the attempt to foist the institutions of one nation on 
another have ended in failure. Its freedom from advo- 
cating any particular form of political constitution has 
adapted Christianity to every nation under heaven. 

Next, if they had commenced their labours by en- 
deavouring to regenerate the faulty political constitutions 
around them, they would have ensured the active Ooppo- 
sition of every existing government, and brought them to 
a speedy termination. In this respect the contrast 
between it and Judaism is remarkable. Judaism was 
designed for a single nation, and it contains the outlines 
of a political constitution suited to its requirements. 
Christianity was intended to exert a mighty moral and 
spiritual influence over every nation under heaven, and 
it contains none. Yet the writers of the New Testament 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 199 


were Jews, who felt for the Old Testament a profound 
veneration ; and yet they have deliberately abandoned its 
political institutions, and substituted no others in their 
place. Nearly every ancient philosopher, at the con- 
clusion of his writings on morals, favoured the world with 
his ideas on the laws and constitution of a republic, 
through which he hoped to effect theregeneration of society. 
But it always fell still-born ; and neither the men of his 
own age, nor of any subsequent one, have been persuaded 
to adopt it. Mahomet fell into the error of uniting with 
his moral code a body of political legislation. The result 
is that Mahometanism is only fitted for Orientals. The 
Koran will never extend its influence beyond the unpro- 
gressive races of mankind. The same remark is true 
respecting Hindooism. Its caste system is both destructive 
to itself, and unfit for every other nation. 

Yet the New Testament lays down a few broad prin- 
ciples respecting political duties. It teaches that political 
society is an ordinance of God; that to public authorities 
obedience is to be rendered conscientiously ; that the end 
of political society is the good of the governed ; and that 
therearecertain limits within which civil governmenthasno 
right to interfere. In ancient States political and religious 
obligations were frequently confounded, and no respect 
was shown in their legislation for the rights of conscience. 
Jesus Christ laid down clearly that man is bound by 
higher obligations than those due to the State. “Render 
to Cesar,” says He, “the things which are Ceesar’s, and 
to God the things which are God’s.” In no work of 
any ancient philosopher is there any so clear a distinction 
as to the limits of civil obedience. If Jesus Christ and 


200 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


His apostles had been the fanatics which unbelievers 
charge them with having been, they would have dealt 
with political questions in a very different spirit. Fanatics 
have so done in all times. Their mode of referring to 
them is one of the strongest proofs of their calmness of 
judgment. 

Mr. Newman next asserts that the New Testament 
contains no precept regulating the practice of war. I am 
astonished at this assertion, for I have read it to little 
purpose if it does not contain many which have the closest 
bearing onit. The only thing which is true is, that it does 
not contain a formal treatise on the law of nations, or one 
regulating the duties of belligerents. What! Nothing about 
war, when every virtue which it pronounces to be pre- 
eminently Christian is utterly opposed to its practice? 
Nothing about war, when it contains a direct precept to 
feed one’s enemy? Let its moral teaching become an 
actuality, and war will become an impossibility. This pe 
culiarity of its teaching is all the more striking when we 
take into consideration the fact that ancient writers do 
not say one word in condemnation of war, but many in its 
praise, and that the martial virtues received their highest 
commendation. ‘The most eminent men of ancient times 
had no compunction to kill, to enslave, or to destroy. 

A similar objection is made, because it contains no 
precept directly commanding the abolition of slavery. Is 
it the only, or even the most efficacious way, I ask, to bring 
about the extinction of an institution deeply interwoven 
with the whole fabric of society, by commanding its aboli- 
tion by direct precept? Is not the inevitable result of the 
great principles of its teaching, when they have thoroughly 


* 


Moral Teaching of the New Tistament. 201 


penetrated the mind of man, its certain and gradual 
destruction? What mean, I ask, its reiterated declara- 
tions, that all men are brothers in Jesus Christ? What 
is the meaning of its positive assertion, that in Jesus 
Christ there is no distinction between bond nor free, and 
between one race and another, but that all are children 
of a common father? I should simply weary you it I 
were to quote passages which assert the elevation of the 
humbler classes of mankind, and multitudes of others 
which utterly conflict with every principle on which 
slavery is built. Some of the grandest exhibitions of 
Christian martyrdom were exhibited in the persons of 
slaves. Renan tells us that the Neronian persecution of 
the Church commenced the elevation of both slave and 
woman. | 

I assert that nothing more exhibits the sobriety of 
the teaching of the New Testament, than the mode in 
which it deals with the question of slavery. It has been 
objected, that its greatest missionary tolerated it. He did, 
and he acted wisely in so doing. There were elements 
in society enough for stirring up a servile war. There had 
been many such in the previous history of Rome. With 
what result had they been attended? The aggravation 
of the slave’s condition, and the suspension ot 
thousands of slaves on crosses on the public roads of 
Italy. Would the Christian missionary have promoted 
the interest of the slave, by stirring up a servile war, 
while the emperor was the master of forty legions? The 
writers of the New Testament acted wisely, in laying 
down principles which could not help sapping slavery to its 
centre. Unbelievers are always anxious to refer to the 


202 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


teachings of ancient philosophy. What philosopher, I 
ask, has laid down any principle which was subversive of 
slavery? On the contrary, some of the greatest of them 
expressly taught that slavery was the natural condition of 
society. An eminent Roman, I mean Cato the Censor, 
left his worn-out slaves to perish and die. St. Paul says, 
“Masters, give to your slaves that which is just and equal, 
knowing that you have a Master in heaven.” Please to 
observe his words, “just and equal ;’ do you except against 
this as the right principle for regulating the relations of the 
capitalist and the workman? He tells the Christian 
slave, i: he had the opportunity of getting his freedom, to 
embrace it. He sent back to his master, it is true, a 
runaway slave, whom he had converted, but accom- 
panied with a letter compared with which there is nothing 
more pathetic in the whole range of literature—the 
Epistle to Philemon. It is worth your reading as an 
exquisite piece of composition, though somewhat marred 
in our translation He promises under his hand to 
pay any debt he might have contracted; and then 
hinting that he had aright to command, he entreats his 
liberty by every pathetic consideration which could weigh 
on a sensitive mind. ‘ Receive him,” says he, ‘‘ not as a 
slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved, specially to 
me; but how much more unto thee, both in the 
flesh, and inthe Lord.” He designates him as “his 
son, born in his bonds, his own heart.” Are not these 
facts subversive of the fundamental principles on which 
slavery rests? 

I cannot forbear drawing your attention to a striking 
contrast. A great philosopher, justly admired by unbe- 


: 
| 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 203 


lievers, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, sat on 
the imperial throne of the Roman Empire during the 
middle of the second century of our era. He was influenced 
by a deep sense of duty, but he issued no edict enjoining 
the manumission of the slave. In our day an emperor 
who is not a philosopher, but a Christian, has issued an 
edict abolishing slavery throughout the wide extent of 
his dominions. He has liberated serfs by tens of 
millions, and for so doing he deserves the gratitude 
of mankind. I fearlessly put the question, Which is more _ 
favourable to liberty, that philosophy which teaches that 
all mankind are descended from an ape ; or Christianity 
which teaches that all men have a common father, even 
God? 

But Mr. Newman further objects, St. Paul’s teaching is. 
deficient in not enunciating the rights of man. Does he 
mean deliberately to affirm, that it would have been an 
improvement to the pages of the New Testament if they 
had contained a direct discussion on this subject? It 
has done better. Although it may not have said 
much about the rights, it has said much about the duties 
of man. But adds Mr. Newman, “ Better irrigation, or 
cultivation, better roads, better laws of land, better condi- 
tion for the poor, better government, equally with improved 
astronomy or other science, were matters of little worth 
to one who expected a Divine Governor and Avenger, 
shortly to appear in the clouds of heaven.” Does Mr. 
Newman mean to imply that forthe purpose of constituting 
the New Testament an adequate guide as to the duties of 
life, that it ought to have contained a treatise on road 
making, or agriculture, or astronomy, or exhortations en- 


204, The Alleged Difficulties in the 


joining special diligence in these pursuits? But it will 
be objected, nothing is more suited to prevent attention 
to such subjects than the expectation of the nearness of the 
end of the world? I reply, that the shortness of life is a 
fact ; if man perishes with his body, all earthly interest 
may be over to us at any moment, and cannot endure 
long. Why should not a full realization of this unques- 
tionable fact, on the part of unbelievers, produce a similar 
result? There are passages in St. Paul’s writings which 
show that he was far from being indifferent to the evils 
by which society is afflicted. He was very far from being 
insensible to the perils to which the traveller was exposed, 
the wrongs inflicted by magistrates, or the dangers arising 
from mobs, and he uniformly dealt with such questions 
with practical wisdom. One thing is certain, that the 
Author of Christianity laid down, whether His coming was 
near or remote, that diligence in their respective callings 
was the great duty of His followers ; that He would call 
them to account for everything with which He had en- 
trusted them ; and that those who simply endeavoured to 
preserve what they had, without actively using it, would 
be visited with His heaviest censure. If it is a man’s 
duiy to cut a road, or to improve a piece of land, or to 
study astronomy, the teaching of the New Testament 
requires that he should do it with his utmost diligence. 
‘“‘Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as unto the Lord, and 
not unto men.” 

Mr. Newman’s complaints of the defectiveness of 
the teaching of the New Testament on the principles 
of social and political morality are widely scattered 
throughout this Tract. Among them, is the old charge 


, 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 205 


of its omission to enforce the duty of patriotism. Mr. 
Mili also seems to be of opinon, that it greatly ignores 
our public duties. At page go ofhis Essay on Liberty, he 
writes as follows: ‘ And while in the morality of the best 
pagan nations, duty tothe State heldamost disproportionate 
place, infringing on the just liberty of the individual, in 
purely Christian Ethics, that grand department of duty is 
scarcelynoticed or acknowedged.” If I were to understand 
the words “ Christian Ethics” in this passage, as meaning 
what Mr. Mill has elsewhere laid down as its meaning, viz. 
“Theological Morality,” as contradistinguished from 
the teaching of the New Testament, the observation 
before me would lie beyond the purpose of this lecture. 
But he adds : “It is in the Koran, and not in the New 
Testament, that we read the maxim, a ruler who appoints 
any man to an office, when there is another man in his 
dominions better qualified for it, sins against God and 
against the State. What little recognition the idea of 
obligation to the public obtains in modern morality, is 
derived from Greek and Roman sources, not from 
Christian ; as even in the morality of private life, whatever 
exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal dignity, 
even the sense of honour, is derived from the purely 
human, not from the religious side of our education.” 
It seems to me that in this passage Mr. Mill intended to 
include the moral teaching of the New Testament in his 
charge of defectiveness, and not simply ‘“ Theological 
Morality.” 

I concur with Mr. Mill in thinking that in the ancient 
systems of morality the duty of patriotism occupied a 
very disproportionate place. In fact, ancient moralists 


206 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


viewed morality as a branch of politics. When, how- 
ever, he censures Christianity for disregarding this duty, 
he has committed an oversight, of which his own account 
in his autobiography of his early training affords an 
adequate solution. I propose the following answer :— 
First, as to the general principle. Patriotism as a 
virtue is far from being one which admits of an indiscri- 
minate commendation. As it was exhibited in the ancient - 
world (nor is the modern world blameless), the evils 
which were connected with it were enormous. What did 
it mean in the mouth of a Roman? A ruthless disregard 
of the nights ot those who were not citizens, and the 
trampling on a conquered world. What were the views 
entertained respecting it by the Greek? A devotion to 
the interests of a little state consisting of 30,000 citizens, 
and rarely coming up to that number ; a disregard of the 
interests of the vast servile class and of neighbouring states ; 
the right to consign enemies to death or slavery ; and a con- 
temptuous trampling on every one whom he considered a 
a barbarian, whom he might enslave or plunder at his plea- 
sure. What effects had it on the Jew? It shrivelled up his 
character into an exclusive narrowness, such as we have it 
described in the classic writers. In the midst of the weary 
mass of selfishness with which the pages of history are 
filled, I own that I cannot help feeling a certain amount of: 
admiration for the self-sacrifice which it envoked, even in 
the midst of the manifold evils with which its practice was 
attended. There is always something noble in the 
sacrifice of self, in whatever form it may be exhibited. - 
The inscription placed over the 400 Spartans and their 
companions, who perished at Thermypole, is one of grand 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 207 


simplicity : “We lie here, obeying her laws.” The laws 
of Sparta told the citizen not to turn his back on his 
enemy, but to die. Still it is impossible to close our 
eyes to the enormous evils which were wrought in the 
name of patriotism. The New Testament therefore is 
right in not taking notice of this quality as a virtue. It 
has consecrated as the first of virtues all that was essen- 
tially good and great in it, the principle of the sacrifice 
of selt for the good of others, and placed it the highest 
among duties. It gives us all that was noble in it, 
without any of its defects. 
I have never read a work written by an unbeliever, in 
which the duty of self-sacrifice has been recognised as the 
great and all-distinguishing principle of Christian teaching, 
or in which a proper place has been assigned to it in esti- 
mating its teaching as a whole. Yet it is evident to every 
careful reader of the New Testament that it forms the cor- 
ner-stone of Christian morality, and that it is impossible 
to do it justice without deeply considering the place which 
it holds in it. While this is the case, it must be carefully 
observed that those principles of our moral nature which 
terminate in self, have their proper place assigned to them 
in the New Testament. Butabove them, regulating them, 
and controlling them, stands this great duty of self-sacrifice. 
A holy Christ seats Himself down in the place, which in 
ancient morality was occupied by citizenship and race. 
He calls forth the highest sacrifice of our selfish nature ; 
He claims the entire man, body, soul, and spirit, to 
be consecrated to His service, and to be engaged in 
doing His work. That work is to do good with all his 
power, and with all his means ; no act is too great, none 
too lowly, not to be demanded by this great principle. 


208 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


I assert then that this duty constitutes a great prin- 
ciple, which is adequate to guide us in all the require- 
ments of political or social morality. By it the Christian 
is bound to do to his brother man all the good he can; 
and he is to do it with the best light which his under- 
standing imparts. The Christian politician is bound to 
feel an entire responsibility to do his duty with his 
utmost powers in the situation in which he is placed. So 
is the magistrate, and every-public officer. The Christian 
landlord is bound by it to exert the influence of his 
position for the good of those dependent on him; so is 
the Christian capitalist ; so is the Christian merchant ; 
so is the Christian in every possible calling. So, let me 
add, is the Christian workman bound to do his work 
honestly and well, and not, as Carlyle says, to manu- 
facture shoddy, and to worship Beelzebub. ‘There is no 
social or political duty which this principle does not 
require the Christian to perform, and to perform well. 
Slightly altermg Mr. Mill’s precept from the Koran, I 
affirm if a Christian ruler were to appoint a man to an 
office, while there is another man better qualified to dis- 
charge it, and he was aware of the fact, it requires no 
special precept to inforrn him that he sins against this 
great duty. 

Mr. Mill’s next assertion, that whatever recognition the 
idea of obligation to the public obtains in modern 
morality “is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not 
from Christian ones,” is surely owing to his want of 
appreciation of the all-comprehensive duty of which I 
have been speaking. No inconsiderable portion of the 
teaching of the New Testament is occupied in enforcing 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 209 


on us the duties we owe to others, ze. to the public. 
“Look not,” says St. Paul, “every man to his own 
things, but every man to the things of others.” This 
duty is in the strongest manner enforced by example, “I 
would gladly,” says he, “spend and be spent for you, 
though the more earnestly I love you, the less I be loved.” 
The whole life of the apostle was occupied in the dis- 
charge of public as distinct from private duties. Ordinary 
men and women are far more indebted to such teaching, 
as the source of their obligations to society, than anything 
which they have learned from Greek or Roman writers. 
All that can be said is, that the New Testament contains 
no chapter specially devoted to the elaboration of our 
political or social duties, though it lays down principles 
abundantly adequate to guide us in the discharge of 
them, and to excite us to their practice. 

I am still more astonished at the following passage, 
which I can only attribute to the prepossessions pro- 
duced by Mr. Mill’s early education, as set forth in his 
autobiography : “ As even in the morality of private life, 
whatever exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal 
dignity, even the sense of honour, is derived from the 
purely human, not from the religious fart of our 
education.” 

I ask boldly, is this a fact ? The New Testament 
forms the most important ingredient in the training of 
ordinary men and women. Its principles have largely 
modified modern society. Is not high-mindedness to be 
found therein? Is not personal dignity? Is not a sense 
of honour? Doubtless it teaches humility ; but the most 
perfect humility is consistent with all these qualities, 

14 


210 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


The human side of the character of Jesus Christ is a 
perfect exhibition of magnanimity, high-mindedness, and 
personal dignity. Was not the man who would not in- 
‘trude himself on other men’s labours, but who worked 
with his own hands to support himself and his com- 
panions, instead of allowing his converts to contribute to 
it, a high-minded man? Was he ever deficient in 
showing self-respect or dignity? Has he not appealed to 
the highest principles of human nature, to our love of 
truth, of honourable conduct, justice, purity, moral beauty, 
to the enlightened opinion of society, even to our love of 
approbation? ‘This man expressly writes, “ Be ye fol- 
lowers of me.” | 

I now address myself to that numerous class of 
objections which may be summed up in the assertion, that 
the teaching of the New Testament contradicts that of 
the science called Political Economy. 

Probably many in this room do not consider this a 
very grievous charge, for I suspect that in some of its 
principles you are far from being hearty believers. 
Thomas Carlyle, as you know, has designated iaedes ate 
dismal science ;” and ifits teachings are the sole message 
of good news which we have to address to degraded 
man, I shall not dispute that it isdismalenough. I will 
state my own opinion. This science is an exhibition of 
a number of partial truths respecting human nature ; but 
it contemplates only one aspect of it, and if it is pro- 
pounded as the sole means of regenerating or elevating 
mankind, or as adequate to the entire wants of our moral 
nature, or as the sole physician of our condition morally 
and physically, it becomes a cruel parody. Man has 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 2Ir 


wants and aspirations which this science can never meet, 
and is subject to disasters which it cannot remedy. 

The following, I apprehend, contains the real point of 
the objection. Christianity is so earnest in teaching the 
duties of benevolence, kindness, and almsgiving, that it 
must come into collision with those of industry, Saving, 
accumulation of capital, and the production of wealth, 
without which advancement in civilization is impossible ; 
and that it is even adverse to the accumulation of the 
fund necessary for the payment of wages. 

First, I. observe that mankind are subject to dire 
calamities, with which the principles of this science are 
wholly inadequate to grapple. Let us consider an in- 
stance or two. A man who is the sole support of his 
family dies suddenly, and leaves them destitute, or is 
seized with sickness which utterly incapacitates him 3 or 
his children are idiots, and otherwise incapable of earning 
their bread. I need not enumerate to you the ten thou- 
sand calamities to which life js liable. Multitudes of 
men also are sunk into a profound state of moral degra- 
dation. All these things can only be adequately provided 
for by the stimulation of those virtues and affections, to 
which Christian moral teaching directs its most earnest 
appeals, 

I think that you will agree with me, that the selfish 
a‘fections in man are far Stronger than the benevolent 
ones. If men could be cured of the vices which Chris- 
tianity pre-eminently denounces, the affections which 
terminate in self are quite adequate to take care of them- 
selves, and Tequire no stimulation, Our benevolent 
feelings, under which head I include all those which 


212 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


prompt us to self-sacrifice, are comparatively feeble. The 
idea presented to my mind when quietly surveying the 
most crowded parts of the City during the most active 
hours of business is, The weakest to the wall. Sorrow, 
misery, or misfortune do not expect relief or atten- 
tion here. When, then, the moral teaching of the New 
Testament throws all its energy into the attempt to 
quicken the benevolent feelings of our nature, and leaves 
the selfish ones comparatively uncared for, T think that 
you will not take exception to this portion of its teaching. 
I will examine a few of the objections in detail. 

First, Mr. Newman affirms that all the precepts of 
Jesus Christ were ‘atended to be taken literally. On this 
point Mr. Mill disagrees with him ; and he also thinks that 
they are irreconcilable with nothing which a comprehen- 
sive morality requires. Mr. Newman endeavours to sup- 
port his position by affirming that His first followers so 
understood Him, referring to the opening chapters of 
the Acts of the Apostles. These undoubtedly tell us, 
that under the peculiar circumstances in which the infant 
Church was placed, large numbers of its members con- 
tributed their property to a common fund. But there is 
a portion of the narrative which he has omitted to notice, 
and which is conclusive against his position. Peter is 
represented as saying, “ Ananias, why hath Satan filled 
thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Whhiles TE ze 
the land) remained, was it not thine own? and after it 
was sold, was it not in thine own power 2” ‘These words 
make it clear that the act of contributing to the common 
stock was a purely voluntary one ; that it formed no con- 
dition of Church membership, nor was it any portion of 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 213 


the law of Christ. The circumstances of the times ren- 
dered it necessary to support large numbers out of the 
common fund, precisely as you yourselves do when a 
strike takes place. In their zeal large numbers of the 
converts sold their possessions for the purpose of contri- 
buting to this. -What Ananias did was that he professed 
to give up the whole, and thus to entitle himself to sup- 
port from the fund, whereas he only surrendered a part 
of the proceeds of the sale. The epistle of St. James 
proves that the state of things mentioned by St. Luke 
was only designed to serve a temporary purpose. It had 
then ceased. 

Again, many of the precepts of the New Testament are 
uttered in opposition to some corrupt moral principle then 
extensively prevalent, or are addressed to men under par- 
ticular circumstances; to take an instance, that given to the 
rich young ruler. What is there in the context to imply that 
it was intended for any other purpose than to test him, or 
that it was designed for universal application? All such pre- 
cepts no doubt involve a great moral principle which is of 
universal obligation ; but it is simply absurd mechanically 
to apply the mere letter of a precept to all states and con- 
ditions ofmankind. Against this practice the New ‘Testa- 
ment emphatically protests. To do so is to imitate those 
quacks, who pretend that they have found out a universal 
medicine, able to cure every malady. You will probably 
ask, How are we to determine when this is the case? I 
answer, By the use of a little common sense and common 
candour ; by entering into the spirit of its teaching, and 
viewing its subordinate parts in relation to it. I need 
hardly say, that this is necessary to enable us to get hold 
of the meaning of every writer. 


214 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


But you will object, Does not the teaching of the 
New Testament utterly discourage saving? Does it not 
absolutely forbid us to make provision for the future ? 
What can you say to such a precept as this, “ Consider 
the ravens, which have neither storehouse nor barn, yet 
God feeds them. Are ye not much better than they?” 

Yes, truly, we are much better than the ravens. We 
possess reason and foresight, which they do not, and this 
makes all the difference. God provides for both men 
and ravens within the range of their respective faculties. 
The raven, according to the faculties which God has given 
it, is provided for. In a similar way man shall be provided 
for within the range of his. This forms a good reason 
why men should not be devoured with anxiety for the 
future ; but none for taking no care about it. It were 
absurd to argue because God provides for a raven to whom 
He has given no faculty like foresight, that therefore 
He will provide for men, to whom He has given it, 
and who neglect to use it. What the speaker in- 
tended to teach is the great truth that we ought to trust 
in providence, after we have used the best faculties which 
God has given us. | 

But it will be urged, that the precepts respecting alms- 
giving are without the smallest limitation. They say 
nothing about looking out for deserving objects. So are 
numerous other duties in the New Testament. If all 
the qualifying circumstances had been inserted, the book 
would have been swollen into a library. ‘The duties are 
strenuously affirmed, and each individual is leic to fill up 
the details by the aid of common sense and an en- 
lightened Christian judgment. 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 215 


But it will be objected, the charge has not been met 
that Christian teaching is antagonistic to the principle of 
prudent saving, and that it renders the accumulation of 
capital impossible. I reply— 

First. The New Testament teaches that a man is bound 
to act as God’s steward, in whatever position in society 
he may be placed by providence. This is distinctly 
recognised in the parables of the Talents, the Pounds,. 
and the Unjust Steward. All waste is strongly dis- 
couraged. Idleness is forbidden. Diligence in business 
is expressly commanded. So is \aying by for charitable 
purposes. So is making a suitable provision for a man’s 
family. It was needless for it to teach directly the duty 
of accumulating capital, for the desire to do so is one of 
the strongest in human nature 3 so strong is it, that 
instead of requiring encouragement, there is the greatest 
danger of its absorbing every noble and generous prin- 
ciple. 

Secondly. Christian teaching wages an internecine war 
against those vices which tempt men to extravagance. [ 
need not draw your attention to them, for their injurious 
consequences no one can mistake. They are the fruitful 
sources of the misery of mankind. It also in the most 
emphatic manner enjoins moderation in all things. If 
then its injunctions were obeyed, we should see an end of 
misery, squalor, and rags. Savings would be as large as 
the political economist could desire, and the most ample 
provision made for providing the requisite wages fund. 
Get mid of these vices, practice the Opposite virtues, and 
all the supposed collision between Christian teaching 
and social science will cease; all its demands will be 


216 The Alieged Difficulties in the 


complied with, and in addition society will have at its 
command all the resources necessary for the exercise of 
the benevolent affections. 

I cannot here help noticing a charge which Mr. Newman 
brings against Christ and His apostles as being mendicants. 
This is simply invidious. They are described as de- 
voting their lives to the work of doing good. Is it 
mendicancy, I ask, to receive a simple maintenance for 
doing so, and to eke this out by labouring with one’s own 
hands, as St. Paul did? Is every popular lecturer who 
receives maintenance for devoting himself to the work of 
lecturing, a mendicant ? | 

There is nothing therefore in the principles of the 
New Testament, if these were fully, and not partially 
carried out, which is adverse to such reasonable accu- 
mulation as is requisite for the purposes of social progress. 
I say emphatically, ¢f they were fully, and not merely 
partially, carried out; for it is not possible to form a 
correct judgment of any system by dwelling only on one 
half of its teaching. Let its teaching respecting benevo- 
lence, and its utter denunciation of the vices tending to 
extravagance be set sideby side, and then estimate the result. 
Selfishness in man is pre-eminently strong. It therefore 
exerts all its efforts to call into activity our benevolent 
feelings. That numbers of evils exist in the world which 
no principle, founded on self-love can adequately meet 
is no theory, but a fact. It addresses itself strongly to 
those principles of our nature, whose proper function is 
to palliate those evils. It wages internecine war against 
those vices which impel men to extravagance. — Its 
demands of self-sacrifice in the work of doing good are one 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 217 


of its strongest characteristics; but let it be observed 
in proportion as the evils of the world are got rid of, the 
sacrifice of capital necessary to effect this will diminish 
likewise. I ask you not to survey one portion of the 
teaching of the New Testament without the other. 

I do not think that there are many persons in this room 
who will find fault with the New Testament because it 
teaches that there is something more in the relation 
between the employer and the employed than a mere 
pecuniary bargain, and that the mere inspection of the 
rate of wages in the labour market, is not the full dis- 
charge of the duties which they owe to each other. In 
this portion of the subject, Mr. Newman is guilty of an 
incredible unfairness. He affirms that St. Paul teaches the 
unqualified obedience of slaves to their masters, of child- 
ren to their parents, and of wives to their husbands. 
What shall we say of a writer who quotes a line or twoin 
which such duties are enjoined, and omits even to no- 
tice the context, which enjoins the duties correlative to 
these. It is perfectly true that there is such a passage 
in St. Paul’s writings, as “Servants, obey in all things 
your masters according to the flesh.” Here Mr. 
Newman stops. But the Apostle adds, “not with eye- 
service, as men-pleasers, but as doing the will of God 
from the heart; for of the Lord ye shall receive the 
inheritance, for ye serve the Lord Christ.” The same 
apostle has a very strong precept for masters, enjoining 
their corresponding duties. ‘“‘ Masters,” says he, “give to 
your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that 
ye have a Master who is in heaven, and there is no 
respect of persons with Him.” Faithful service on the 


218 The Alleged Difficulties in the 


part of the employed ; just and equal treatment on the 
part of the employer, is St. Paul’s golden rule to regulate 
the relations between these two classes. Do you except 
against it? Is it not a far better one than the squeezing 
as much labour as possible out of the employed on 
the one hand, and the rendering the smallest amount of 
loyal service as he can to the employer on the other? 
There is a morality in conducting an argument as well 
as in striking a bargain. What shall I say of a writer 
who affirms that St. Paul taught unlimited obedience 
to servants, and who has omitted all mention of his 
teaching to masters, to give that which is “just and 
equal” P ’ 

Mr. Newman also asserts that St. Paul teaches, without 
thesmallest qualification, the duty of absolute submission of 
wives to husbands. Willit be believed that in the direct 
context he has enjoined on husbands ‘to love their 
wives, as Christ has loved the Church, and has given 
Himself for it” ? Observe the last words, and “‘ gave Him- 
self for iw.” As Christ then gave His life for the Church, 
so it is the duty of the husband to give his life for the 
wife. Yet this writer affirms that St. Paul held a degraded 
view of the married state. You will find no such teach- 
ing In any work of ancient moralists. In the ancient 
world the wife was degraded into a chattel. The woman 
who flouted herself before the world’s eye, and had 
comparative freedom was the courtezan. ‘The Christian 
husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, 
‘and gave His life for her. The Christian husband is 
therefore bound, not only to sacrifice himself, but if need 
be, to give his life for his wife. Where will you find the 


Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 219 


rights of women so effectually vindicated as by this teach- 
ing ; or the marriage union placed on so high an elevation? 
There are many other subjects which I would have 
gladly treated of in this lecture, but my space is ex- 
hausted. My selection has been regulated by their im- 
portance. If I have succeeded in showing that those 
difficulties which I have discussed are devoid of any real 
foundation, or have arisen from misconception of the 
great principles on which the teaching of the New Testa- 
ment is based, the less important ones may be solved by 
the application of the same line of reasoning. I bélieve that 
the great principles which I have laid down are adequate to 
meet every difficulty. Iask you first to ascertain what those 
principles are, and then to apply them to the investiga- 
tion of its subordinate details. Above all, do not be 
guilty of a course so utterly unphilosophical, as to apply 
a precept intended for one condition of society to a 
wholly different one, or to except against one portion of 
its teaching, while you have utterly neglected to take into 
account the other, which is its legitimate complement. 
Finally, let me observe that there is one portion of 
the moral teaching of the New Testament which the 
limits assigned to this lecture have only permitted me to 
allude to. To give it an effective treatment has been 
simply impossible. Yet it constitutes the most dis- 
tinguishing feature of its teaching. I allude to the all- 
important fact, that Christianity not only professes to lay 
down a number of moral principles, which are adequate 
to guide man in every advancing stage of his civilization 4 
but to create a moral and spiritual power, which is able 
to rescue unholy men from their unholiness, degraded 


220 Alleged Difficulties, &¢. 


men from their degradation, and to elevate men whose 
virtue is imperfect to higher degrees of purity and good- 
ness. Unless we keep this fact steadily in view, it is 
impossible to form a right estimate of its moral teaching. 
I repeat it, this forms its most distinguishing characteristic. 
Philosophers sighed for such a power, but they found it 
not; they left the degraded masses of mankind in their 
degradation, and contemplated their condition with de- 
spair. The lowest haunts of humanity formed the sub- 
ject of the special care of Jesus Christ. They heard the 
voice of no philosopher; but they heard His. At His. 
call multitudes have forsaken their evil ways, and have 
striven to follow Him. The wisest, the best, and the holiest 
of men, have proclaimed Him their Master and their Lord. 
The influence which has been exerted by Jesus Christ has 
exceeded that of all philosophers and moralists united. 
No personal influence which has been brought to bear 
on the world has been equally mighty. In proof of this 
I adduce the authority of Mr. Lecky, in his History of 
Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. With this quo- 
tation I will conclude: “ It was reserved for Christianity 
‘to present to the world an ideal character, which through 
all the changes of eighteen centuries, has inspired the 
hearts of men with an impassioned love, and has shown 
itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, 
and conditions; has not only been the highest pattern 
of virtue, but the highest incentive to its practice ; and 
has exercised so deep an influence, that it may be truly 
said that the simple record of three short years of active 
life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind, than 
all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhorta 
tions of moralists ” 


THE COMBINATION OF UNITY WITH PRO. 
GRESSIVENESS OF THOUGHT IN THE 
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, 


AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF DIVINE REVELATION. 


BY THE 
REV. J. H. TITCOMB, M.A, 


Vicar of St. Stephen’s, South Lambeth, and Rural Dean of Clapham. 


a s) 
Yt Pb ¥ iy 


4 : ¥ 
Sek 
panes (2 
es: ioe 

Fi y a ve 1 


en a 


\ eae ae rene lag pane ee 
te BT. : “ ‘ aie F ee ra 
+ oh Wy aS » 4 Racy . - : 4 iP 
ioe. v4 
hi bets 3 mF 
Pca be 11ers 


The Combination of Anity with 
Progressibeness of Thought m 
the Books of the Hrble, 


AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF DIVINE 
REVELATION. 


THERE is one element of consideration underlying this 
subject which is not at first sight conspicuous, I mean 
the element of time, or the fact of there having been an 
interval of at /east one thousand years between the pub- 
lication of the earliest Old Testament literature and the 
birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. We who receive the 
whole Scripture as containing an authentic revelation 
from God, of course believe this interval to have been 
longer ; but, in view of the question now to be raised, 
that variation of opinion is not of much consequence. 
For, even assuming that no portions of the Old Testa- 
ment were written before the time of David or Solomon 
(B.C. 1,000), it is now admitted on all hands that many 
very ancient documents must have been preserved to the 
times of the Hebrew monarchy ; and that notwithstand- 
ing the forms into which such documents were afterwards 


224 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


thrown, they must still have enshrined the faith and 
feelings of previous generations which had not only 
dated historically from Abraham, but had looked back 
traditionally even into earlier and more remote periods. 

I do not enter, therefore, into any arguments about 
the authenticity of the books of Moses; nor do I even 
tase for granted their Divine inspiration. I only lay 
down as the basis of my position, that the Old Testament 
Scriptures, whatever may have been the dates of their 
various publication, practically represent the religious 
faith and hope of one continuous stream of people from 
the time of Abraham to Christ. Which faith was briefly 
this : that as soon as the human race first felt the curse and 
misery of sin, it had been cheered by a revelation from 
God, which promised it a final victory of good over evil, 
and of happiness over sorrow, by means of some coming 
Deliverer who should one day be born as “ the Seed of the 
woman.” Upon that simple thought the Hebrew people 
ever looked back as to the first bud of promise, and the 
first germ of hope which had gladdened the world in its 
suffermgs—a hope which they had not only inherited 
from their forefathers, but which had never ceased to be 
the theme of a long series of sacred writers, whose litera- 
ture professed to have been Divinely inspired. 

It is this fact, gentlemen, to which I now desire to call 
your attention. I ask you to follow me in an argument 
by which I shall endeavour to show (1) that the Sacred 
Scriptures contain a unity, combined with progressive- 
ness of thought, running over a prodigious lapse of time, 
making up one harmonious and perfect whole. TI shall 
then (2) inquire whether such a fact finds a single 


of Lihwught in the Books of the Bible. 225 


counterpart in any other religion of the world. And (3) 
whether, taking all circumstances into consideration, the 
conviction is not forced upon us, that this must have 
involved a great deal more than what was merely’ 
natural or human; and that the only solution of the 
matter left to us is a belief of its having been really the 
resuit of Divine Revelation. 

I. Let us InquirE, WHETHER THERE IS NOT A 
UNITY COMBINED WITH PROGRESSIVENESS OF THOUGHT 
IN THE SCRIPTURES, RUNNING OVER A PRODIGIOUS 
LAPSE OF TIME, YET MAKING UP ONE HARMONIOUS AND 
PERFECT WHOLE. 

We may look at this subject either Historically or 
Doctrinally, 

1. Regarding the Historical development of the pro- 
mised “ Seed,” it may be enough to say that the Hebrews 
dated a tradition of it from the beginning of human woz ; 
believing that, however much of this idea may have been 
gradually overlaid by idolatry and unbelief, it was, 
nevertheless, always to some minds the germ of a living 
hope. Mark you, I am not assuming this tradition to 
have been an actually supernatural revelation. I am 
only treating it now as a floating opinion which was 
handed down from generation to generation, with the 
view of tracing it out briefly in regard to its historical 
growth, 

In the first place, then, you will please to observe that 
this traditional hope belonged to the whole race of man. 
It simply announced the coming of a human Redeeme:, 
without the slightest reference either to time, or to place, 
orto family. It said that the “Seed of the woman” 

T5 


226 Zhe Combination of Unity with FProgressiveness 


was to bruise the Serpent’s head (Gen. iii. 15). From 
the date of Abraham, however, we gather that this belief 
became handed down under a more limited form, inas- 
much as the Promised Seed was then made a special gift 
-to that patriarch’s house; the word of promise being 
“In ¢hce shall all families of the earth be blessed” 
(Gen. xii. 3). Call this hope superstition if you like, it 
was, at any rate, the Hebrew belief. And so it passed 
on, through Isaac and Jacob, until we reach the twelve 
tribes of Israel, and the kingdom of David ; when 
a revelation was alleged to have been given, announcing 
that the covenant of God with that king’s house should 
be inalienable, and his dynasty established for ever. 
“ And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep 
with thy fathers, I will set up thy Seed after thee which 
shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish His 
kingdom. He shall build an house for My name, and I 
will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever” 
(2 Sam. vil. 12, 13). . By and by, the manner in 
which this Son of David was to make His appearance 
became still more distinctively marked. One prophet 
taught the Church that He would come out of Beth- 
lehem: “ But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou 
be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee 
shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be Ruler in 
Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
everlasting ” (Mic. v. 2). Another prophet announced that 
the monarchy which was to be overthrown by Babylon 
should continue to be humbled by its enemies till the 
birth of this long looked for Ruler: “TI will overturn, 
overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more until He 


Ff Thought in the Books of the Bible 227 


come whose right it is; and I will give it Him” 
(Ezek. xxi. 27). Another prophet declared that when 
He did come there would be a breaking up of the whole 
Jewish nationality : “ After threescore and two weeks 
shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself ; and the 
people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the 
city and the sanctuary ; and the end thereof shall be 
with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations 
are determined” (Dan. ix, 26). In the ‘same strain 
spake Malachi, the last of the prophets : “ But who may 
abide the day of His coming? And who shall stand 
when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire, 
and like fullers’ soap. And He shall sit as a refiner and 
purifier of silver; and He shall purify the sons of Levi, 
and purge them as gold and silver ” (Mal. iii. 2, 3). At 
length, after 400 years, there appeared One in whom all 
these characteristics were alleged to have been combined. 
Now, of course, as Christian believers, we feel sure they 
were combined. We believe that Christ dd come of 
Abraham’s seed, and of David’s house 3 that He was 
born in Bethlehem, and at a time when the royal dynasty 
was in ruins ; and that the issue of His coming: was the 
actual destruction of Jerusalem, and the scattering of 
the nation, and the purging of the priesthood by fire. 
As for yourselves, gentlemen, all I wish to press upon 
you, for the present, is this: that here is a long-con- 
tinuous development of one idea, progressively evolved, 
and harmoniously sustained by a number of different 
writers lasting from at least the time of Abraham to the 
first century of our own era. And just notice also how 
this unity of belief is expressed in the Gospel of 


2208 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


St. Luke: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for 
He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath 
raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His 
servant David ; as He spake by the mouth of His holy 
prophets, which have been since the world began : that 
we should be saved from our enemies, and from the 
hand of all that hate us ; to perform the mercy promised 
to our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the 
oath which He sware to our father Abraham” (Luke 1. 
68-73). In other words, one continuous and pro- 
gressive hope is described as having travelled through a 
period of about 2,000 years, living on freshly to the last, 
with a permanence which was incapable of destruction. 

2. I might have said very much more upon this part 
of the subject, but the whole question is so vast that I 
must hurry on rather to the Doctrinal hopes which 
gathered around this promised Redeemer ; inasmuch as 
the preservation of those hopes, in their unity yet grow- 
ing fulness, throughout so long a period and by so many 
different witnesses, is one of the greatest human marvels. 
According to the oldest tradition of the Hebrew race, 
the Promised Seed was to be looked for as a Redeemer 
‘rom sin and its attendant curse. Not a word, however, 
was at first stated as to the means by which that con- 
quest should, be effected. Those particulars were opened 
out gradually—grouping themselves around three aspects 
of character, namely, the Prophetic, Kingly, and Priestly 
offices. I am afraid it will be only on the two former of 
these that I shall now have time to enlarge. 

First, then, let us view Him in His PRoruetic or 
TEACHING OFFICE, 


of Lhought in the Books of the Bibie. 229 


This was distinctly announced by Moses. I say by 
him ; for although you may deny that Moses was the 
actual penman of the whole Pentateuch, yet you can 
scarcely deny that it was in the main a compilation of 
traditionary, if not documentary, fragments which had 
been handed down to the Church through that lawgiver. 
What, then, are the recorded or traditional words of 
Moses upon this point? He says: “The Lord thy 
God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of 
thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye 
hearken ” (Deut. xviii. 15). Whether the full meaning 
of those words was detected by the Hebrews at once, 
and the hope thereby engendered of any ultimate abro- 
gation of the burdensome law through the coming in of 
a greater Prophet who should bestow upon them a 
higher, holier, and more permanent covenant, we cannot 
say ; but certainly that view was gradually introduced 
afterwards. For example, David hinted at it when he 
described in the 4oth Psalm how “burnt offering and sin 
offering ” were not to be required for ever ; and how One 
vas to come who should say: “TI delight to do Thy will, 
O my God, yea Thy law is within my heart. I have 
preached righteousness in the great congregation ” 
(Ps. xl.6—g). Isaiah brought it out still more clearly 
when he said, “It shall come to pass in the last days 
that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be estab- 
lished in the top of the mountains . . . . and a// nations 
shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say: 
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, 
to the house of the God of Jacob; and He wil teach us 
of ffs ways, and we will walk in His paths : for out of 


230 Zhe Cembination of Unity with Progressiveness 


Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from 
Ferusalem” (Is. ii. 2, 3). In other words, this promised 
Prophet was to be, like Moses, a new lawgiver, teaching 
not only the Hebrews, but many nations aiso in the 
spirit of the freest possible education. For which reason 
Joel, speaking, as we believe, in the name of the Lord, 
said: ‘“‘And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will 
pour out My Spirit upon a// flesh. . 2.1... Also upon 
the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will 
I pour out My Spirit” (Joel ii. 28). And afterwards 
Jeremiah, still more plainly: ‘‘ Behold the days come, 
saith the Lord, that I will make a mew covenant with the 
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. . . . This 
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of 
Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My 
law in their inward part, and write it in their hearts, and 
I will be their God, and they shall be My people” 
(Jer. xxxi. 31, 33). So in an earlier chapter: “It shall 
come to pass in those days, saith the Lord, they shall zo 
more say, The ark of the covenant of the Lord ; neither 
shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember it.. 
At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the 
Lord, and all nations shall be gathered into it, in the name 
of the Lord” (iii. 16,17). Could any truth, then, be 
more continuously evolved through successive centuries 
than this? If Moses said that the coming Prophet was 
to be a lawgiver like himself, and Isaiah that He should 
_ give His law from Jerusalem to all nations (¢.e, the Gen- 
tiles), Jeremiah enlarged the picture by proclaiming it, 
not only a new covenant, but so new that the ancient 
ark, as a symbol of their then worship, should be known 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 231 


no more. In other words, the whole basis of their 
worship was to be altered. It was no longer to be repre- 
sented by one local symbol, and to be confined to the 
Hebrew people, but to consist in the worship of God by 
the whole Gentile world, based upon a perfectly new 
dispensation. How changed this new dispensation was 
to be under this new Prophet, Malachi also made known 
200 years after Jeremiah, when he said: “From the 
rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My 
name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every 
glace incense shall be offered unto Me, saith the Lord 
of Hosts” (Mal. i. 11). Four hundred more years passed 
away after Malachi, and yet this doctrinal hope of the 
coming Prophet survived. You may not believe the 
testimony of the Gospels as to the miracles of Jesus, 
But granting even that those miracles were never per- 
formed and that the Jews who thought so were mere 
credulous enthusiasts, still their exclamation, ‘This is 
of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world” 
(St. John vi. 14), exhibits the survival of a strong national 
hope upon this subject. At any rate, the New Testa- 
ment covenant, as it has actually been handed down to 
us, is in wonderful accordance with this long-continued 
development’ of Old Testament thought. Believers or 
unbehevers, Christians or infidels, no cne can fail to see 
that New Testament thought here fits into Old Testa. 
_ ment thought with the same propriety and neatness that 
a well-made key fits into a complex and elaborate lock ; 
and that although it was the work of many centuries, yet 
the hope and its fulfilment were, from first to last, 
cok erent. 


232 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


Secondly, let us now view this promised Hope of Israel 
in relation to His KinGLy office. 

For some reasons this should, perhaps, have come first, 
inasmuch as the primeval tradition of Eden, which is 
recorded in the book of Genesis (viz., that the Seed of 
the woman should bruise the Serpent’s head), funda- 
mentally involved the idea of an universal dominion over 
the powers of evil. That is to say, it embodied the 
belief that as man had ruined his own race, so One 
of that race should hereafter rise up to extricate and 
deliver it from ruin. Hence the thought of conquest 
and kingship had been an underlying element in this 
traditional hope of a coming Redeemer, even from the 
beginning. Abraham (eg.) had beheld Him as blessing 
the whole human family (Gen. xii. 3) ; Jacob as gathering 
the nations under one great dominion (Gen. xlix. 10) ; 
and Balaam as smiting down all the opposition of his 
enemies (Numb. xxiv. 17). In this way the picture was 
unfolded with unswerving fidelity through all the roll of 
the prophets, Isaiah said: “The government shall be 
upon His shoulders ; and His name shall be called Won- 
derful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, 
the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government 
and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of 
David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to 
establish it with judgment and with justice from hence- 
forth even for ever” (Is. ix. 6). Jeremiah said: I will 
raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall 
reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice 
in the earth” (Jer. xxiii. 5). Ezekiel said: “I will 
set up one Shepherd over them, and He shall feed them, 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 233 
even my servant David; He shall feed them, and Te 
shall be their Shepherd; and I the Lord will be their 
God, and My servant David a prince among them” 
(Ezek. xxxiv. 23). Daniel said: ‘‘ Behold one like the 
Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came 
to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near 
before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all. people, nations, and lan- 
guages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting 
dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom 
that which shall not be destroyed” (Dan. vii. 13). The 
same prophet also stated the same symbolically, when he 
represented ‘“‘a stone cut out without hands smiting the 
image upon his feet and breaking it to pieces ;” and 
then interpreted it thus: ‘‘In the days of these kings 
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall 
never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall not be left 
to other people, but it shall breakin pieces and consume 
all the kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Dan. ii. 
34, 44). Zechariah also said: ‘Rejoice greatly, O 
daughter of Zion ; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, be- 
hold thy King cometh unto thee; He is just and 
having salvation ; He shall speak peace unto the heathen, 
and His dominion shall be from sea to sea” (Zec. ix. a). 

How strongly these hopes still abode among the Jews 
at the time of Christ’s appearing no one can doubt. We 
do not need the New Testament to prove this, because 
the whole bulk of ancient Jewish literature. does so. 
Whether, therefore, those words recorded by St. Luke 
were a true revelation from God or not, they were, 
at any rate, an embodiment of the national belief. 


234 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


“* He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the 
Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the 
throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the 
house of Jacob for ever ; and of His kingdom there shall 
be no end” (Luke i. 32, 33). Now this is all I want 
for my present purpose. I am simply pressing on your 
attention the fact that one living hope of a coming King 
had been nursed among the Hebrew race from the 
beginning, and that not a single epoch in its history 
can be pointed to in which that thought had ever been 
lost sight of. I will not say that every feature in the 
prophetic portrait of this King was equally nursed up to 
the last moment in the national heart. For it was with 
the Jews as with most of ourselves ; they clung to what 
was joyous and pleasant, but ignored the painful and 
unpropitious. David had first brought out to view the 
fact, that just as his own pathway to the crown of Zion 
had been opened through sufferings and persecutions, so 
the ideal David of his own house—the promised King of 
Israel, could only be exalted to the throne of Zion in the 
same manner. This was the picture in the 2nd Psalm: 
“Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine 
a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, 
and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord 
and against His Anointed...... Yet have I set My 
King upon My holy hill of Zion.” The'same idea came 
out in other Psalms, such as the 22nd, which said: 
“They pierced My hands and My feet. They part My 
garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture” 
(ver. 16, 18)—words which, never having been personally 
fulfilled in David, are necessarily held as prophetic of 


of Lhought in the Books of the Bible. hee 


David’s ideal—the promised King of Israel ; and no less 
in the 118th Psalm which said: “The stone which the 
builders refused is become the Head stone of the corner” 
(ver. 22). Not, however, till the time of Isaiah was the 
whole picture openly manifested. << My Servant shall 
deal prudently ; He shall be exalted and extolled” 
ds li, 13). Nevertheless, it was added :—He shall 

“grow up as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry 
ground.” He must be “ bruised ” and “ put to grief,” 
and be brought “as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a 
sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not 
His mouth ” (Is. liii. 2, 7, ro). Thus the exaltation and 
glory of the Redeemer’s kingship were to be preceded 
by the antagonism of an, unrighteous world. Only 
through the pathway of suffering could He finally and 
effectually overcome the powers of evil, and redeem the 
world itself from its sufferings on account of sin. Daniel 
said the same thing :—“ Messiah shall be cut off, but not 
Jor Himself” (Dan. ix. 26). Zechariah also repeated it: 
“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against 
the man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts. 
Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered ” 
(Zech. xii. 7). If time allowed other texts might be 
quoted. These were points, I say, which, though plainly 
painted in the sacred writings as part and parcel of the 
professed revelations of God, were yet neglected and 
forgotten by the nation at the appearing of Christ, 
because unpalatable and difficult of apprehension. 
Nevertheless, if you will only calmly read the New Tes- 
tament, you will see that the teaching of the Gospels 
exactly harmonised with these pictures of the Redeemer’s 


276 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


kingship. For without entering into any critical question 
as to the credibility of the claim, it is undoubted and 
certain that the Jesus of the Evangelists dd claim to be 
Israel’s promised King ; that He was opposed by a 
persecuting world, and rejected alike by the heathen and 
Jewish rulers ; that His hands and feet were pierced, and 
His garments divided among His enemies ; that He was 
‘‘ bruised,” and ‘‘ put to grief;” that the Shepherd was 
smitten, and His sheep scattered; and that He ad 
claim to come forth as conqueror of Death, and after- 
wards to be exalted to the throne of Zion. And on that 
throne we Christians believe Him to be still resting— 
according to another prophecy: “Sit thou on My 
right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool ” 
(Ps. ex/ any 

I regret that I have only time to take up these two 
points, viz., the Prophetic and Kingly offices of this 
long looked for Redeemer, as illustrations of my argu- 
ment. They do but form parts of a mighty subject 
which would rather require a volume to unfold than 
a lecture. Yet they are enough to indicate what remains 
behind. ‘They show how one continuous stream of ever 
developing but united thought went sweeping on through 
successive generations in the shape of predicted hopes ; 
and how accurately those hopes harmonised at last with 
the doctrinal and historical teaching of the New Testa- 
ment in reference to Him who claimed to have appeared 
as the promised Redeemer. 

Now mark, gentlemen, I am not asking you to believe 
that He was your Redeemer because the Evangelists say 
so; nor yet because they tell you that He proved His 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 237 


commission by miracles; nor because we assert the 
Gospels to have been really written by the men whose 
names they bear ; nor because the Church of Christ has 
handed them down to us with an authority which demands 
our faith. You may smile as much as you please at all. 
these points of Christian evidence. You may stamp 
upon them, and tread them under foot as you like. But 
this you cannot deny: that for a thousand years or 
more the Hebrew race, as exhibited in the various 
writings of the Old Testament, held to one great hope— 
ever the same, yet ever expanding—which hope became 
accurately re-exhibited in the writings of the New Testa- 
ment as having been actually fulfilled. 

The wonderful extent to which that fulfilment goes 
might occupy us all night, especially if I applied it to the 
typical ceremonial of the law of Moses, and to the way 
in which.the recorded life, death, and resurrection of 
Christ satisfied the moral purport of that law, and 
explained its final abrogation. Could we employ one 
hour expressly for that subject, I might show you how 
the Christian doctrine of redemption interprets all the 
sacerdotalism of the Mosaic institutions, and explains 
their hidden meaning with a beauty and _perspicuity 
which are marvellous. Whether that doctrine be true or 
false is not now under debate. All I contend for is 
that, taking it as it is written, it fits like a golden key 
into the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament, 
and harmonises with that faith and hope which had been 
gradually developing among a people who had been in 
professed covenant with God for at least 2,000 years or 
more previously. 


238 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


II. Let us now INQUIRE WHETHER ANYTHING SIMILAR 
rO THIS CAN BE FOUND IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER 
RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. 

(r.) Take ancient Egypt for example. It is true 
there existed in that country a pantheon or assemblage 
of gods and goddesses, which lasted for 3,000 years. 
So far, we allow, there was a certain well sustained unity 
of thought in its religion. But there was no progressive- 
ness of thought in it. There was not the vaguest 
semblance of any historical or prophetic belief in a 
coming Person who should embody in Himself the hope 
and happiness of all nations, and who should ultimately 
bring back the world into an universal empire of peace, 
love, and righteousness. ‘Thoughts and hopes like those 
had never entered into the religion of any other country 
upon the face of the globe, except Palestine ; still less 
were they ingrained into a sacred literature, which 
(always consistent with the expression of such thoughts 
and hopes) went on century after century in portraying 
them with increasing minuteness, and with growing 
fulness. If you tell us that among the philosophers of 
-ancient Greece and Rome there was, notwithstanding, 
great progressiveness of thought, we reply—Yes, because 
all philosophy implies a seeking after truth ; and where - 
truth is honestly searched after, there cannot but be 
more or less of mental progress. But, on the other 
hand, those philosophers exhibited little or no unity in 
the midst of their progressiveness. Some of them be- 
lieved in the mythological deities of their country, and 
‘some did not. Some began their search after truth by 
the study of external nature; others by denying the 


of Thought in the Books of the Bivie. 236, 


reality of matter. Some.held that God and the universe 
were one; others that God and. the universe were 
eternally distinct. Some believed that the Divinity took 
no interest in the affairs of men ; others just the opposite. 
It would be endless to narrate the utter incoherences 
which separated even the best of these philosophers 
from one another, through the different centuries during 
which they flourished. Scarcely any truth of importance 
was settled and fixed. And as for writings which were 
homogeneous in the texture of their thought, or progres- 
Sive in their descriptions of even ove religious belief 
respecting the future, you might search on for ever with- 
out discovering them. No one pretends to doso. All 
those religions or philosophical productions were just 
what you might have expected them to be as the mere 
offspring of natural enlightenment. . Many of them were 
acute, subtle, refined, and even noble. But they were 
continually discordant and hostile to each other ; bear- 
ing marks upon their very forefront that they were the 
outcome of independent minds and judgments, without 
any supernatural inspiration to weld them together into 
one common web.- 

(2.) What shall we say of China, whose authentic 
annals far exceed in duration those of ancient Greece or 
Rome—stretching back from the present moment to 
about the seventh century before Christ? In some 
respects the religion of this great empire is more like 
that of ancient Egypt than of Greece or Rome, and is 
analogous even to that of the Hebrews. For it possesses 
a sacred literature ; it-has inherited holy books. The 
first of these books, the Yih-king, is a mysterious treatise 


240 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


upon the nature of the universe, and the action of the 
elements in creation. The second, called the Shu-king, 
is more historic. The third, called the She-king, is 
chiefly lyrical, and for the most part moral and ethical. 
Another is the £7-22, or book of rites and manners, pre- 
scribing rules for society. Confucius, the second founder 
of the Chinese state religion, revived the teaching of 
these old books, and established them on a firmer basis, 
upon which basis they still rest. One thing is certain, 
however, in the midst of all this unity of purpose—viz., 
that, from first to last, it was simply utilitarian and 
materialistic ; rejecting everything which could not be 
comprehended by the natural understanding. It was 
pre-eminently an appeal to reason, subordinated to the 
wants and welfare of society—a system in which the 
emperor was the fountain-head of order, and the parental 
relationship its living soul. 

You will see, then, that while the sacred literature of 
China possessed a certain amount of social and ethical 
unity within itself, yet it was essentially fixed and 
stationary. It admitted of no new development, and never 
looked out beyond the world of sense and sight. It lacked 
the intellectual progressiveness of Grecian thought, be- 
cause it tied men down to the rigid rules of sacred books 
which were, after all, more political than religious, and 
which were so completely utilitarian as to choke all 
imagination and speculation. There was nothing, there- - 
fore, analogous in this country to the Hebrew literature, 
whose sacred books were not only much more numerous, 
but, while social, political, and ethical, like the Chinese, 
were also full of enthusiastic hopes prophetical of the 
time to come. 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible, 241 


(3.) Let us turn now to Buddhism. If this is not 
the oldest it is, at any rate, the widest-spread religion of 
the world ; not perhaps geographically, but numerically 
without a doubt. It boasts of three hundred millions of 
disciples. 

It too can boast of its sacred books, such as the Sutras, 
the Vinaya, and Abhidharma. But, like the Chinese 
books, they are without any elements of a future hope 
for this world ; still less of a hope which was continually 
getting more and more definite with increasing years. 
There is but one idea of supreme happiness in the creed 
of Buddhism—Nirvana ; z.¢., deliverance from existence 
into a state of impenetrable apathy, or absolute annihila- 
tion. With the deepest convictions of present wretched- 
ness in the world, the only ultimate hope which it sets 
before man is extrication from the bonds of individuality. 
True, there is much that is noble, mild, and lofty in its 
attention to the charities and duties of life ; in its 
cultivation of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and 
resignation under suffering. But, speaking of it as 
containing a creed for the future, what parallel is there 
between its sacred books with those of Hebrew Scrip- 
ture? ‘The latter, in full view of the same wretchedness 
as that which Buddhism contemplated, were always 
expanding and developing the portrait of one living 
Person who should come to deliver the world from its 
suffermg—teacher after teacher rising up to add some 
fresh touch to the picture, which made its historical 
fulfilment all the more complex and difficult. The 
former, on the other hand, had no hope to communicate 
concerning a living Person who was to come ; nothing 

16 


242 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


that could be brought to the test of an actual historical 
proof ; nothing which could be proved or disproved by 
identification with the predicted delineations of previous 
teachers. Anything of that kind was as much unknown 
among the Buddhists as it had been among the 
Confucians of China, or the old Egyptians, and Greeks 
and Romans. 

(4.) Was it different with Brahminism in Hindus- 
tan? ‘This religion can boast indeed of its sacred books 
—the Vedas, the Puranas, the Shastras. But what unity 
of thought is there in them? There is plenty of pro- 
gressiveness we allow, but little unity. In the Vedas . 
there are many prayers and hymns addressed to the 
powers of nature, which exhibit noble thoughts, repre- 
senting the Brahmin seeking after nearer approaches to 
the Divine Spirit. In the subsequent Puranas, and 
other sacred books, however, we pass on to deities and 
immoralities which it is shameful even to think of. At 
one time worship is given to Brahma ; at another time it 
is superseded by Vishnu worship; then comes the stern 
and cruel Siva worship ; and out of all has followed a 
pantheon in which deities may be reckoned by the 
million. The voice of such a religion is truly a testi- 
mony to the inner cravings of mankind after some sort 
of revelation from God ; and the contents of ‘all these 
books doubtless embody, with more or less of fulness, 
the longing of the human heart to have converse with 
the unseen world. In.the Avatars, or incarnations of 
Vishnu, for example—who is represented in the Bhagavat 
Gita to say—“ As often as there is a decline of virtue, 
and an insurrection of vice in the world, I make myself 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 243 


evident ; and thus I appear from age to age for the pre- 
servation of the just, the destruction of the wicked, and 
the establishment of virtue,”—we see a faint trace of 
something like the Hebrew hope. Yet what comparison 
is there between the two, when you examine the literature 
of these religions in detail? In the earliest Vedas you 
trace Monotheistic hope and aspirations. In the latter 
books you have hope rising up for man through the 
grossest Polytheism. And it Vishnu be represented in 
these books as revealing himself from time to time for 
the world’s good, yet what continuity of thought com- 
bined with progressiveness of portraiture is ever given 
by successive Hindoo writers respecting his appearance, 
through two thousand years or more before his arrival, 
followed also by an historical narrative of that appear- 
ance, in broad harmony with such forecast outlines of 
his portrait? None but a madman would attempt even 
to look for it. In the Hebrew theology alone do we 
find any such phenomenon. Just where all the future of 
hope for.a world of sin and sorrow is, in other religions, 
at the best vague, shadowy, and undefined, in the Bible 
it is clear and distinct. Mind, I am not saying at pre- 
sent that these its utterances were supernaturally in- 
spired. But, at all events, those utterances for centuries 
went on expanding with a growing breadth and defini- 
tiveness, which cannot be gainsaid ; and they stand out 
now amongst the religions of the world as absolutely | 
separate from anything and everything which ever ex- 
isted by their side. 

Having said thus much, let us 

III. INQUIRE, WHETHER, TAKING ALL CIRCUMSTANCES 


244 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progresstveness 


INTO CONSIDERATION, THE CONVICTION IS NOT FORCED 
UPON US THAT THIS FACT MUST HAVE INVOLVED A GREAT 
DEAL MORE THAN WHAT WAS MERELY NATURAL OR 
HUMAN, AND THAT THE ONLY SOLUTION OF THE MATTER 
LEFT TO US IS A BELIEF IN ITS HAVING BEEN REALLY THE 
RESULT OF DIVINE REVELATION. 

First. As to the Fact itself, which divides itself into 
three parts. 

(1.) There are thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, 
which were certainly all in existence in the time of 
Antiochus Epiphanes, nearly two hundred years before 
Christ. The most unbelieving critic does not deny this. It 
is as much an historical truth as that of the existence of 
the British Museum Library in the reign of Queen Victoria. 

(2.) Assuming (for the sake of argument) that these 
thirty-nine books were not all necessarily written by the 
authors to whom they are popularly assigned, it is never 
theless perfectly incontrovertible that they represent the 
progressive faith and hope of one continuous stream of 
people from the time of Abraham to Christ. Allowing, 
for example, that the Pentateuch was only finally 
thrown into its present form during the latest age of the 
Hebrew monarchy it is nevertheless confessed, even by 
the most remorseless of critics, that the materials of 
which it is composed belonged to various antecedent 
ages, running back through many ancient documents 
and traditions. Some of those accounts may be rejected 
by unbelievers as fabulous ; the belief in a coming 
Personal Redeemer, which they nursed within the 
Hebrew race, may be laughed at as superstition; their 
miraculous elements may all, for the time being, be 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 245 


obliterated ; yet itis acknowledged that they still embalm 
the remains of an actual faith and hope which never 
became extinguished in Israel. 

(3.) It was the peculiarity of this religious hope of the 
Hebrews not only to fix itself steadily on the coming of 
one living Personal Redeemer, who should through their 
race bring in salvation for the entire world, but to be 
gradually confirmed and enlarged by a succession of 
religious teachers, and by a variety of distinct methods, 
which made any guesses at what should happen extremely 
hazardous, and any accurate fulfilment more and more 
improbable. 

This fact, I maintain, constitutes a phenomenon un- 
like anything else in the religious history of the world. 
The more so when we look minutely into the whole case. 
Hence a few words further. 

Secondly. As fo the CIRCUMSTANCES which attend this 
face. . 

(1.) The people who so tenaciously clung to this 
_ fixed yet growing hope were subject to the greatest 
vicissitudes of fortune. Mind, I am not relying at 
present upon any of the miraculous elements of the 
Hebrew narrative, but only on that plain outline of 
Hebrew history which is so abundantly confirmed by 
profane authors, and by monumental remains. I do 
not stay to inquire how this people got into the land of 
Canaan. Authentic history undoubtedly finds them 
there. It finds them there established as a strong 
monarchy. It finds them there closely attacked by ~ 
foreign enemies, and afterwards carried for a long period 
of exile into the heathen empire of Babylon. It finds 


246 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


them again restored to their own land, but distressed 
and discouraged by new foes. It finds them there alike 
ravaged by the Greeks and Romans, and reduced into 
a miserable state of vassalship to the latter power. 
' Nevertheless, throughout all these political changes we 
see the same great hope abiding in the national heart. 
Nor is that hope stationary. Instead of being suppressed 
it rises higher, and expands more fully, and becomes 
portrayed with more and more of minuteness. 

(2.) The writers who developed this hope were men 
of various orders—kings, priests, prophets, statesmen 
herdsmen. Yet with all these antecedent grounds for 
expecting their witness to be different, it was practically 
the same. Separated as they were from each other by 
- education, by position, by modes and habits of thought, 
and by variations in national experience, they all had in 
view the same living picture of one coming Redeemer ; 
and without variation or contradiction they painted Him 
in colours of increasing brightness: 

(3.) Some of the points brought out in this developed 
portraiture were of the most strikingly practical charac- 
ter, admitting of the plainest possible refutation, sup- 
posing the result should not agree therewith. Moreover, 
this picture of the living Man and His times was 
confessedly finished off and stereotyped about 200 years 
before the time when a new set of writers proclaimed 
its fulfilment in the person of Jesus Christ. In the 
prolonged unity, therefore, of this wonderful chronicle oi 
predicted hope, there was a wide front of thought open 
to the charge of misconception and error if events should 
not correspond with the description. 


a 
Se ee ae 


of Thought wn the Books of the Bibvle. 247 


(4.) Fully 250 years after the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, when every one admits the thirty-nine books 
of the Old Testament had been written, it is now most 
fully conceded, even by infidel writers like Renan and 
others, that St. Paul wrote the epistles to the Romans, 
Galatians, and Corinthians, containing many historical 
allusions to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. For 
argument sake, therefore, I will exclude all that was 
miraculous in these epistles, and take up only those 
points which belong to simple and actual fact. I will, 
treat them for the moment, that is to say, as merely 
human compositions, and see how far they bear witness 
to what you may be pleased to call the surmises of the 
Old Testament writers. 

Not to be too diffuse, let me name only ¢Arce points of 
singularly clear and undoubted harmony between these 
epistles and the Old Testament teaching previously 
referred to. 

(r.) St. Paul here declares it to be the belief of the 
Church, that although Christ was of the seed of David, 
the long promised King of the Old Testament prophets 
(Rom. i. 2, 3), yet that He had been despised and 
rejected by His own nation (1 Cor. 1. 8, and i. 23). 

(2.) He shows that Christ was not only acknowledged 
by believers in His Prophetic office (ze. as a great 
spiritual teacher), but that the result of His teaching had 
introduced them into a new covenant, under which 
certain old Jewish ordinances (eg. Circumcision and 
the Passover) had disappeared as obligatory (Gal. v. 2,6; 
vi. 12, 15; 1 Cor. v. 7, 8), and the law of Moses had 
been set aside for a new Gospel dispensation where 


248 Zhe Combination of Unity with Frogressiveness 


Gentiles stood as welcome as Jews (Rom. ix. 24-30 ; 
Kir2, 235 xv. 6), 

(3.) He teaches that this changed dispensation was 
in the course of actually breaking up the whole Jewish 
nationality (Rom. xi. 7-10), and of thus bringing upon 
it all the woes predicted by the prophets—circumstances 
which, I need not say, were fulfilled in the destruction 
of Jerusalem by Titus, and in the “scattering and 
peeling” of the people through the whole world. 

Here then were, at least, three undeniable facts, 
entirely removed from the region of myth or miracle,— 
three actual and historical circumstances which were as 
plainly authentic as any that were ever recorded by the 
pen of a contemporary writer. And these three facts, 
moreover, were in absolute harmony with certain Old 
Testament statements made from 200 to 2,000 years 
before they happened. 

I have mentioned only these three, because time alone 
allows of it; otherwise I might have adduced more. 
But taking these three as sufficient for my purpose, I 
now ask you to rise up and account for this unity com- 
bined with progressiveness of thought, running on through 
2,000 years and more, and all winding up harmoniously 
in the historical Christ just as it had been portrayed, 
on any other principle than that of Divine Revelation. 

You have already seen that there was nothing like it 
in any other religion of the world. What, then, accounts 
for this unique phenomenon in the religion of the 
Hebrews? How is it that in the sacred books of the 
Old Testament—separated, at least, by 200 years from 
the first authentic books of the New Testament—there 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 249 


is one golden thread of thought which runs on through 
both ; one great hope predicted, and then fulfilled ; one 
distinct web of events prophetically announced, and 
afterwards as plainly woven together into actual history ? 
I ask you, gentlemen, to account for this by any natural 
law of human probabilities. 

Consider, first, that in the ordinary phases and 
changes of human thought (subject as they are to all 
sorts of disturbing elements from rival schools of teachers, 
and from different idiosyncracies of mind) this unity 
and continuity of hope in one coming Redeemer, 
throughout many centuries, would be naturally most 
improbable. Assuming there was no external revelation, 
and that nothing gave rise to such a style of writing 
except the inspiration of human genius, and the sur- 
misings of men’s imagination,—I ask you to account for 
this uniformity of witness to one thought, and for the 
gradual development of this one prophetic portrait 
through successive centuries, without any mutual con- 
tradiction or incoherence. As I have remarked before, 
these writers were men of various orders, and of different 
dates ; and belonged to a nation whose political and 
religious life was subject to many convulsions. Every- 
thing, therefore, was calculated to disturb their unity of 
sentiment. Yet nothing broke it. If you can produce 
one single case even approaching to such a phenomenon 
in any other religion, we will say no more; but as we 
know you cannot, we maintain it to be a marvel of mental 
unanimity which, in itself; so reaches the miraculous as 
to be only capable of explanation upon the supposition 
of its having resulted from the gift of Divine Revelation. 


250 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


This, at least, is ovr explanation. We ask yov to find a 
better. 

The case, nevertheless, becomes stronger—very much 
stronger—when you consider— 

Secondly. That there was not merely a correspondence 
of sentiment in relation to this Promised Hope of Israel 
between the books of the Old Testament and the first 
authentic books of the New Testament, notwithstanding 
aa agitated interval of two or three hundred years ; but 
that there was also a perfect agreement between ¢he pre- 
diction of actual events relating to Him in the one, and the 
fulfilment of such events in the other. 

You will remember that, to meet your own objections, 
I have eliminated all the miraculous elements of Scrip- 
ture ; and that I have placed no weight in my argument 
upon the necessary authenticity of the Old Testament 
records. I have taken them, for the moment, as mere 
human compositions, which, somehow or other, no 
matter by whom, were confessedly written at different 
periods of Hebrew history, and were gathered at all 
events into one sacred canon by the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, or nearly 200 years before the birth of Jesus 
Christ. Even on this naked basis, however, you have 
seen that the Old Testament records pledged their 
veracity to the fulfilment of three coming events—viz., 
(1) That the Redeemer when He appeared would be 
opposed and persecuted, and rejected and slain by His 
own people. (2) That the result of His ministerial 

teaching would be to introduce a new covenant, by 
which the law of Moses would be set aside for a new 
dispensation, granting equal privilege to the Gentiles as 


of Thought in the Books of the Bivle. 255 


to the Jews. And (3) that this changed dispensation 
would have the effect of breaking up the Jewish nation- 
ality. You have also seen, on the authority of four New 
Testament books, whose authenticity is now universally 
admitted, written about 250 years after the time of 
Antiochus Epiphanes, that those events were in the 
course of an actual historical fulfilment. Now those 
events were not miraculous. You cannot treat them as 
myths. They are ordinary historical events which still 
remain uncontradicted and indisputable, We therefore 
call upon you to give us some reasonable explanation, 
upon natural grounds and on human laws of probability, 
for this wonderful harmony between the events as pre- 
dicted and the events as fulfilled. 

To do this you will be driven to one or other of the 
three following alternatives: either (1) to prove that 
these sayings of the Old Testament have no proper 
application to the coming of a Redeemer ; or (2) that, if 
they had, they were only the surmisings of genius—the 
forecasts of penetrating minds as to future probabilities, 
which were strangely and unexpectedly brought about by 
a series of lucky coincidences; or (3) that being mere 
guesses and speculations, subsequent events were so 
moulded by Christ and His apostles as purposely to 
bring about the fulfilment of them. 

If you take the fst of these alternatives, then I con- 
front you with a literary difficulty. For it runs clean 
contrary to the whole current of the most ancient Jewish 
interpretation. Take the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, for 
example, the Messianic interpretation of which was only 
abandoned by later Rabbis, such as Abenezra, Jarchi, 


252 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progresstveness 


and Abarbanel. Gesenius says: “It was only the later 
Jews who abandoned this interpretation ; no doubt in 
consequence of their controversies with the Christians.” 
This is the interpretation, for instance, in the Chaldee 
Paraphrast. And even some of the later Rabbis assent 
toit. Thus Rabb Alschech, in his commentary on that 
chapter says: ‘ Upon the testimony of tradition, our 
old Rabbis have unanimously admitted that king Messiah 
is here the subject of discussion.” In a similar manner 
Fonathan Ben Uzziel, the author of the Chaldee ‘Tar- 
gum, who lived a little before the time of Christ, says, in 
allusion to Daniel, when speaking oh the prophet 
Habakkuk, that “the four great kingdoms of the earth 
should be destroyed in turns, and be succeeded by the 
kingdom of Messiah.” It would be endless to adduce 
proof upon this point, and needless too ; for however 
much our modern rationalists may argue to the contrary, 
it is simply a matter of fact that all the opinions of the 
ancient Jewish Church are against them.” 

If you adopt the second alternative, maintaining that 
these predictions of the coming Messiah were merely the 
surmisings of natural genius, which were strangely and 
unexpectedly brought about by a series of lucky circum- 
stances; then I challenge you to prove that there was 
anything in the state of the Jewish mind, even for a 
thousand years before Christ, that naturally led to such a 
development of thought. On the contrary, was not 
everything directed against it? Did it flatter any national 
hopes? Was it in keeping with any feeling of patriot- 

* See Dr. Allix, ‘‘On the Judgment of the Ancient Jewish 
Church.” 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 263 


ism? Was there any one element in the Mosaic theology 
which led up to it? Were not all the hopes which clus- 
tered around this expected King of Israel naturally of a 
joyous and triumphant nature ? What teacher of a people 
having such hopes could have ever instinctively had the 
slightest antecedent ground for prognosticating that the 
arrival of their King would issue in the downfall of their 
nation? Or that when He appeared, it would be to 
overthrow their temple, and abrogate their laws, and in- 
troduce a totally new dispensation? Or that the coming 
of such a King would be signalised by his rejection and 
death? Such predictions were no outcome of human 
genius—no forecasts of probabilities founded upon astute 
observation. We look in vain for any natural germ of 
such thoughts. At all events, if there were any, we ask 
you to produce them, and we challenge you to bring 
them forward. 

If you adopt the ¢hird alternative, viz., that these 
thoughts were mere rough guesses, first originated as 
speculations, then elaborated artificially, and afterwards 
moulded into realities by the determined conduct of 
Christ and His apostles, who purposely brought them 
about in order to make their fulfilment agreeable with 
the prediction—then we bid you explain how it was 
done. ‘That line of reasoning might, perhaps, be applied 
to some points of the evangelistic narratives, such as our 
Lord’s entrance into Jerusalem on “a colt, the foal of an 
ass” (see Zech. ix. 9), or to the commencement of His 
ministry in Galilee (see Is. ix. 1)—circumstances which 
were perfectly within His own control, and which, there- 
fore, might possibly be alleged as having been effected 


254 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


to secure the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. But these 
instances of which we speak were very different. They 
were perfectly beyond the control of any individual wil] 
ofman. You will tell me, perhaps, that any one might 
have risen up as a teacher in Israel, and by setting forth 
claims which were opposed to the prejudices of the Jewish 
rulers, have brought about his own death. Doubtless. 
But will you have the kindness to inform me how a man 
by those means could have forced on, after his death, a 
series of gigantic events so as to produce-a disruption of 
Jewish nationality, just because such a catastrophe had 
been fancifully sketched out some hundred years before 
as a consequence of the coming of the King whose 
claims that teacher had ambitiously assumed? You will 
reply, perhaps, that the time was well selected, inasmuch 
as Palestine, already in captivity, was already giving 
preliminary signs of an expiring nationality ; and that, 
therefore, its final conquest by the Romans was suff- 
ciently probable to justify its speedy expectation. But 
even this subtle argument fails you. For the voice ot 
that continuous and progressive teaching throughout the 
Old Testament, of which I have been speaking—though 
in one point of its development it foretold the breaking 
up of Jewish nationality as a consequence of the rejection 
of its promised King—yet did not let that fact stand 
alone. It predicted the going forth of a new law from 
Jerusalem, by which all nations were to be gathered into 
it, as into a spiritual metropolis for the world. The 
King, whose rejection was to bring ruin on that city 
literally, was also to be a Teacher or Prophet whose 
doctrine and influences after death should spiritually 


of Thought in the Books of the bible. 255 


restore it for ever, by making it a common centre round 
which the affections of the converted heathen were to be 
gathered, and into which their forces should flow. .The 
testimony of past centuries, we repeat, was not merely to 
the breaking up of the old Jewish nationality, but to the 
coincident uprising of an universal though spiritual 
empire, in which the long promised King and Prophet 
of the Jews should administer His kingdom under new 
laws and statutes, fitted to the moral and spiritual wants 
of humanity at large. Now such a kingdom we actually 
behold in the Christian Church; not as a matter of 
speculation, but as a hard, dry fact. You may ridicule 
our faith as superstition, you may deny the personal 
resurrection of Jesus as a delusive sham ; but you cannot 
deny that through the teaching of apostles and evan- 
gelists there came forth a risen power from Christ which 
lived after He had disappeared, and which, coincidently 
with the dissolution of the Jewish nationality, peacefully 
opened a new kingdom of faith to all nations. I say 
peacefully opened it ; because however much you may 
retort that it was debased by violence in later times, yet 
it should be ever remembered that the kingdom of Christ 
was not set up like Mahomet’s, by the power of the 
sword, but simply by that of argument, of faith, of 
patience, and of love. Its victories through the first few 
centuries were purely moral and spiritual. Nevertheless, 
it triumphantly ran throughout many nations, and so 
fulfilled the predictions of the ancient prophets. is in 

the union then of these two facts which are both strictly 
historical, and each of which survives (be it observed) up 
to this very day; it is the union of these two facts, each 


256 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 


so difficult of achievement yet so widely spread, so 
established and permanent, that we see how utterly 
impossible it must have been for any one will to have 
personally planned and carried them into execution. If 
any of you think this complicated moulding of public 
events according to a preconceived programme possible, 
let him try the experiment. Let Mr. Bradlaugn, for 
example, so set himself against the rulers of this country 
that he is obliged to lay down his life as the penalty. 
Let him and his principles then rise up, as it were, from 
the dead, and so reassert themselves through the pages 
of the ational Reformer, as to bring on a total collapse 
of the British empire by means of foreign invasion and 
conquest. Let his followers then manage simply by 
moral and intellectual means, without the slightest vio- 
lence or turbulence, to get rid of Christianity in Europe, 
so that its churches perish and all its institutions fall. 
When you have done this, gentlemen, as the simple result 
of your own will and pleasure, we will give you a right to 
the argument now propounded. But meanwhile, whether 
you like to hear it or not, we maintain that Christianity 
is a supernatural continuation of the Old Testament 
church of the Hebrews—the predicted evolution of its 
prophecies—the only key which unlocks with reasonable 
ness the full meaning of its sacred books ; a continuation 
up to the present moment of the same line of thought 
which had been in one long course of progressive develop- 
ment from the beginning. I remind you once more that 
this continuation of Church life is not an arbitrary as- 
sumption ; it isa fact. Apart from religion altogether, 
it takes the shape of an historical and literary truth which 


of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 207 


can neither be gainsaid nor got rid of. All other religions. 
are ideal and speculative. The Hebrew faith is historical. 
Its sacred books are a deposit of national literature, 
bristling with every form and variety of style, and ex-- 
tending over a vast period; yet never deviating from 
one witness in religious hope and thought. You have, 
therefore, to account for this fact. As for ourselves, we 
contend that the phenomena here presented to us were 
above all human causation ; that there is not only no- 
thing like them in the history of any other religion in the 
world, but that no other theory except that of super- 
natural revelation is left to us, if we fairly wish to account 
for them. Upon that theory everything is clear. There 
is then an intelligible connection between cause and. 
effect ; but without it, we search in vain for a solution. 
If you think you can give us a better solution, gentle- 
men, try your hands upon it now; and I promise we 
will listen to you patiently. 


U7 


LHE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF FOHN STUART 
MILL. 


BY 
W. R. BROWNE, M.A,, 


Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 


Che Autobiography of TIohn 
Stunt Mill. 


MUST begin this lecture upon the Autobiography of 
John Stuart Mill by observing that I have already 
published a review of that work in the first number of 
the Christian Evidence Journal. In this review are 
contained the chief conclusions and reflections to which 
the study of the book had then led me. I have, however, 
followed a somewhat different path in this investigation, 
and it is therefore only a few phrases and arguments 
contained in the review which I have found occasion to 
reproduce ; but I allude to the fact lest there should be 
anyone here present who has read the review, and 
might be surprised to hear some parts of it repeated 
without explanation. 

The very first point I wish to note is one which has 
already been alluded to in the review, and that is the 
exceeding value of the book before me. No thoughtiul 
man should, in my opinion, neglect to read it, whether 
he agree or disagree with the opinions of its author. We 
live so much to ourselves, each in his own little world of 


A 


262 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


thought and feeling and experience, that we should 


always seize the opportunity to look into another man’s 
mind and see how the problems of life appeared to him, 
and what means he took to solve them. Now there is 
no such opportunity to be compared with that of reading 
an autobiography, if only the writer sets forth faithfully 
the history of his convictions, of the causes which led to 
them, and the effects on life and character which they 
produced. ‘This holds true even if the writer is an ordi- 
nary man like ourselves, with no special talents or high 
qualities. But the value is of course far greater where 
the writer is no ordinary man, but a leader of his age, 
either in thought or in action, and perhaps in the former 
case more than in the latter. Now this John Stuart 
Mill undoubtedly was. Whatever may be the estimate 
of his powers into which the world will finally settle 
down, he, more than any one man, moulded and in- 
fluenced on all abstract questions the ‘ought of the age 
in which he lived. And here we have the record of this 
man’s own thoughts—the picture of his inner life—traced 
out, as all must admit, with simplicity and frankness and 
truth. JI think no one reading the book can doubt that 
what he there describes himself to have thought and felt 
that he really did feel and think; and although there was 
probably much in his life which he does not teil us, ye’ 
that what he does say may be fully reliedon. Therefore, 
as I said before, this book is one which all thoughtful 
men should read ; one from which many lessons may be 
learnt, and on many subjects. But my business to-night 
is not with the book as a whole, nor with all the pursuits 
—political and social and literary—in which its author 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 263 


was immersed. I am going to look at the life of John 
Stuart Mill from one point of view only, and that is the 
point of view of religion. The one question which we 
have to discuss in this hall—to my mind the one ques- 
tion which the world has to discuss—is the question 
whether Christianity be true or false. I am going to 
examine this man’s’life in order to see how it bears upon 
‘that one question; what evidence it furnishes, what 
lessons we may draw from it that may help us to that 
question’s solution. 

I need hardly stop to explain why the life of this par- 
ticular man is specially suited to furnish such evidence. 
The reason is not far to seek. John Stuart Mill was one 
of the keenest, the clearest, the most influential thinkers 
of his day. He was also a man much beloved by his 
friends—(Heaven forbid that I should stint a word that 
can be uttered in praise of the dead)—devoted to the 
welfare of his fellow men, regular and temperate in his 
life, honest, upright, sincere; and he was an utter un- 
believer in any form of religion whatsoever. ‘This fact, 
which was tolerably well known in his lifetime, is made 
perfectly clear and certain by the volume before us. He 
was all that I have described, morally and intellectually, 
either in consequence of or in spite of his rejection of all 
which Christians hold true and sacred. Which of these 
is the case? There can be no denying that at first sight 
his life makes against the party of religion. I know 
that it has been felt to be so by many ; I have felt it to 
some extent myself. Can that be true which a thinker 
so careful and so brilliant—the greatest master, in this 
age at least, of the science of logic and the laws of evi- 


264 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


dence—pronounced unhesitatingly to be false? This is 
the question which men have asked themselves in looking 
at the fact of John Mill’s unbelief before light was 
thrown upon the subject by the appearance of this 
volume. I ask that question again to-night, and in the 
light so afforded I will try to answer it. 

With this object I turn to the book itself, in order to. 
learn (1) what John Mill’s religious opinions really were ; ° 
(2) what were the causes which produced them, and the 
grounds on which they rested. And here I am met by a 
very striking fact. The subject of religious opinion is 
the only subject which does not run through the book. 
There is one passage near the beginning where, in giving 
a general account of his education, he states at length 
and distinctly what were the religious views held by his 
father and impressed from earliest childhood on himself; 
and from that time forward we hear no more on the 
topic, except in a few casual allusions, referring more to 
others than to himself. Considering how minutely he 
describes the change and development of his views upon 
politics, social science, and mental philosophy, this 
silence is certainly remarkable. It must mean one of 
two things—either that his religious views underwent no 
change throughout his life, or that the changes were such 
as for some reason he thought proper to conceal. The 
latter supposition—that he did alter his opinions but 
would not say so—is opposed to all we know of him 
otherwise, and to what we may glean from the book 
itself. We must therefore fall back on the first supposi- 
tion—that his religious views remained throughout 
exactly what they were in his boyhood. And on looking 


The Autobwgraphy of Fohn Stuart Mill. 265 


again at the book, I think we may see very clearly why 
this was so, and at the same time of how little weight 
his authority is on this matter. I must here quote the 
one important passage which I have already mentioned. 
Having described the extraordinary course of mental 
training to which he was subjected, he goes on to speak 
of moral influences, and introduces the subject of re- 
ligion thus :— 

(P. 38.) ‘I was brought up from the first without any 
religious belief, in the ordinary acceptation of the term. 
My father, educated in the creed of Scotch Presbyte- 
rianism, had by his own studies and reflections been 
early led to reject not only the belief in Revelation, but 
also the foundations of what is commonly called Natural 
Religion. .... Finding no halting place in Deism, he 
remained in a state of perplexity until, doubtless after 
many struggles, he yielded to the conviction that con- 
cerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known. 
This is the only correct statement of his opinion: for 
dogmatic Atheism he looked upon as absurd; as most 
of those whom the world has considered Atheists have 
always done. ‘These particulars are important, because 
they show that my father’s rejection of all that is called 
religious belief was not, as many might suppose, primarily 
a matter of logic and evidence: the grounds of it were 
moral still more than intellectual. He found it impossible 
to believe that a world so full of evil was the work of an 
Author combining infinite power with perfect wisdom 
and righteousness. ... His aversion to religion, in the 
sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind 
with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings 


266 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


due not to a mere mental delusion, but tes a great moral 
evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: 
first by setting up fictitious excellences—belief in creeds, 
devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with 
the good of human kind—and causing them to be 
accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues : but above 
all by radically vitiating the standard of morals : making 
it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it 
lavishes all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober 
truth it depicts as eminently hateful. I have a hundred 
times heard him say that all ages and nations have repre- 
sented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing 
progression ; that mankind have gone on adding trait 
after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of 
wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have 
called this God and prostrated themselves before it. 
This 2e plus ultra of wickedness he considered to be 
embodied in what is commonly presented to mankind as 
the creed of Christianity. Think (he used to say) of a 
being who would make a Hell—who would create the 
human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and there- 
fore with the intention, that the great majority of them 
were to be consigned to horrible and everlasting torment.” 

Such then were the opinions of the father. Were they 
imparted to and acquiesced in by the son? On this 
head we are not left in doubt. A little further on we 
read: 

“Tt would have been wholly inconsistent with my 
father’s ideas of duty to allow me to acquire impressions 
contrary to his convictions and feelings respecting 
religion: and he impressed upon me from the first, that 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 207 


the manner in which the world came into existence was 
a subject on which nothing was known: that the ques- 
tion ‘ Who made me?’ cannot be answered, because we 
have no experience or authentic information from which to 
answer it: and that any answer only throws the difficulty 
a step further back, since the question immediately pre- 
sents itself, ‘Who made God?’ He at the same time 
took care that I should be acquainted with what had 
been thought by mankind on these impenetrable pro- 
blems.” 

It is thus certain that no pains were spared to impress 
upon John Mill the religious opinions of his father. 
That he retained those opinions through life there can 
be, as I have already said, as little doubt. Not merely 
does he here quote them with manifest approval, but the 
few scattered notices further on in the book are all in 
the same tone. Thus in the course of an eulogy on the 
character of unbelievers (p. 46) he speaks of them as men 
‘who think the proof incomplete that the universe is the 
work of design, and assuredly disbelieve that it can have 
an Author and Governor who is adso/u¢e in power, as well 
as perfect in goodness.” ‘This then may be taken as the 
creed, or rather the no-creed of James Mill and his son. 
Looking into it we are at once struck by this fact, that 
the grounds of unbelief in this case have nothing what- 
ever to do with what are commonly called the Evidences of 
Religion natural or revealed ; nothing whatever to do 
with the claims of Christianity as compared with those of 
other forms of belief. What we are dealing with is 
simply a sweeping rejection of everything that we call 
supernatural, a rejection made on @ friorz grounds, which 


208 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


are quite independent of the positive evidence, however 
strong, that may be offered on its behalf. All such 
evidence is in fact shut out of court and barred by the 
position that the world being evil, cannot have an Author 
absolute in power and goodness. The strength of that 
position I-shall consider presently. What I now wish to 
point out is the effect that it exercises on the minds of 
its supporters. It is my full belief that John Mill never 
fairly studied the Evidences of Christianity at all. I ex- 
pect to be told that this is inconceivable : that a man of 
his powerful intellect and grasp of mind could not but 
have made a thorough investigation of so weighty a 
matter. It is well therefore that I should state clearly 
my reasons for making such an assertion; and they are 
these. 

(1.) He never in any part of the book gives any hint 
of his having made such an investigation. Considering 
the full information given us as to all he did and thought, 
this omission is very significant: at any rate it throws on 
my opponents the burden of proving that such an investi- 
gation was made. There is one passage of the Auto- 
biography where we should certainly have expected some 
notice of the kind: and that is the description in ch. v. 
of the mental crisis through which he went in early man- 
hood. In the full tide of youthful zeal and ambition to 
be a reformer of the world he suddenly asked himself 
whether, if all the objects for which he was working 
could be completely realised at the instant, this would be 
a great joy and happiness to him: and an irrepressible 
self-consciousness answered “No.” On this he fell into a 
state of utter and hopeless dejection, which lasted for 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mil. 269 


some months. It is in such circumstances that many 
men have recourse to religion, and we might have ex- 
pected that John Mill would at least have made an effort 
to do so: but though the whole crisis is minutely 
detailed, there is no hint of his even entertaining the idea. 
He at last found a refuge from his state of despair in the 
enjoyment derived from the contemplation of nature, 
from books, conversation, and in general the cheap and 
quiet resources of life; and it may fairly be questioned 
whether any man having passed through such a crisis 
without the aid of religion is likely ever afterwards to 
have recourse to it. 

(2.) The early training of John Mill is sufficient in 
itself to account for his never giving any thought to the 
subject of Christian Evidences. What this training was 
we have already seen. The effect produced may be 
described in his own words (p. 43): “I am one who 
has not thrown off religious belief, but never had it: I 
grew up in a negative state with regard to it. I looked 
upon the modern exactly as I did upon the ancient 
religion, as something which in no way concerned me. 
It did not seem to me more strange that English people 
should believe what I did not than that the men I read 
of in Herodotus should have done so.” In fact John 
“Mill’s attitude towards Christianity was precisely that of 
a learned and thoughtful Christian towards Mahometan- 
ism: an exhaustive inquiry into the subject would not 
appear necessary in the one case any more than. in the 
other. The powerful influence of such early training is 
allowed on all hands—by none more than by the sceptical 
school. The only possible means they can take to ex- 


270 «= Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


plain the fact that the great bulk of mankind, even of the 
clever and intellectual, profess a belief in religion—the 
only justification of their outcry as to the evils of preju- 
dice and priestcraft and superstition—is the fact that men 
are as a rule very slow to give up the opinions that 
have been impressed on them in childhood and youth. 
It may be objected that this applies rather to the stupid 
and ignorant ; that the keener and more cultivated minds 
find much less difficulty in shaking off the trammels in 
which they have been bred. But whatever force there 
may be in this objection, there is an influence on the 
opposite side which much more than counterbalances it 
—the influence of that subtle snare, intellectual pride. 
It must be confessed that there is no credit to one’s 
intellect in being a Christian. It is a conviction shared 
with the dullest, the humblest, the most ignorant of man- 
kind. The founder of our faith openly thanked God 
that he ‘‘had hid these things from the wise and prudent 
-and had revealed them unto babes.” But it seems 
obviously and on the face of it a grand thing to bea 
doubter. It shows that we are wiser than our parents 
and teachers : clever enough to see the weakness of argu- 
ments which they think conclusive ; too clear-sighted to 
be blinded by the mists of prescription and authority. 
This is to march with the age and rise superior to the 
antiquated superstitions of the past. Therefore it is a 
matter of common observation that a clever, shallow, 
half-instructed man is always more or less of a sceptic in 
religion. Of course this character does not apply to 
John Mill. But there are evidences enough even in the 
book before us of a calm abiding sense of superiority, 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart NEE 295 


not at all the same thing as vanity and conceit, but quite 
as great a hindrance to the real grasping of truth. He 
had been taught, and had taught himself to believe, that he 
stood by training and instruction on a higher level than 
the mass of mankind ; on their narrow views and sordid 
interests he looked down as from an eminence with pity, 
and not without contempt. Was it likely that such men 
should have the key to a mystery which defied his 
powers to penetrate? Is there wisdom in such as these? 

But I may be reminded that these causes, however far 
they may go towards accounting for the scepticism of 
John Mill, do not apply to the case of his father. Be it 
so. I will show you another cause, more powerful than 
any of those I have named, and affecting father and son 
alike ; a fatal error on what may seem a mere abstract 
metaphysical question, but is really of the most tre- 
mendous and vital import. These two men were un- 
believers, essentially and directly because they did not 
admit the freedom of the will. Once allow that man is 
free, and the whole ground on which they stand is cut 
away from them. To show this let us state their view of 
religion, look it fairly in the face and see what it amounts 
to. Religion cannot be true (this is what they say in 
effect) because the world is evil. ‘‘ You tell us that all 
things are under the rule of an unseen Being, boundless 
in power, perfect in goodness. But, in fact, men find 
themselves living under an empire, not of good, but of 
evil. ‘They have to struggle against pain and sickness, 
and poverty and oppression, and all manner of adversi- 
ties. Why should this be? If God desires his creatures 
to be happy, why does he not make them so? Nor is 


272 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mil. 


this all. As if the misery of this world was not enough 
for him, he has prolonged it into eternity. He has 
made a hell—has created the human race with the 
infallible foreknowledge, and therefore with the intention 
that the great majority of them are to be consigned 
to horrible and everlasting torment. Is not this the 
most perfect conception of wickedness which the human 
mind can devise? Is it not a palpable contradiction to 
assert that a Being who would so act can at the same 
time be perfectly good? And if so, must not a system 
which involves such an assertion be utterly false? But 
all modern religious systems do involve such an asser- 
tion, and therefore all such systems stand self-condemned, 
apart from any evidence that may exist for or against 
their historical truth.” , 

This, put as briefly and plainly as I can, I believe to 
be the position held by James and John Mill. I think 
all will acknowledge its strength. It is at any rate clear - 
and definite. The argument appears to me faultléss ; 
the conclusion to be, on one assumption; undeniable. 
That assumption, though not expressed, underlies the 
whole, and it is utterly false. It isthe assumption that 
man is not a free agent, that he is in the hands of God 
exactly as a machine is in the hands of its maker, only 
that he is a machine capable of feeling pleasure and 
pain. God being almighty must do all things, and if 
' man is miserable it must be because God of his own 
pleasure makes him so, and for no other reason. That 
God being almighty could make man free; that he 
could put before him good and evil, and leave him to 
choose between them, such choice being the one end for 


The Autobwgraphy of Fohn Stuart Mil, 273 


which he existed, and for which existence was worth 
having ; and that if he chose evil he suffered, not from 
God’s act, but from his own: these are conceptions 
which such a theory as Mill’s can never embrace, or 
even conceive. We know that it must have been so. I 
need hardly remind you that John Mill has done more 
than any other man of this century to advance the modern 
theory of Necessity, and present it in its most complete 
and plausible form. ‘That theory, as set forth in his 
“Logic,” is quite different from the Fatalist doctrine 
which has been largely held both in ancient and modern 
times. The Fatalist believes in a great overruling power 
that settles man’s destiny beforehand, and brings it to 
pass without fail; but it does not fetter man’s will, it 
only conquers it. Ifa man is predestined to be drowned 
he will be drowned, do what he may; but he still is free 
to struggle, only he will assuredly struggle in vain. Such 
a belief, though it may deaden man’s energy, does not 
relieve his conscience. The modern theory is much 
more subtle and much more dangerous. According to 
this theory man is simply the connecting link in a chain 
of unalterable sequences. He is born with a certain 
disposition and tendencies, for which, of course, he is 
not responsible; the outward circumstances with which 
he is surrounded act upon this disposition, and inevitably 
produce certain special actions on the man’s part. These 
actions by the like fixed law issue in certain habits, and 
so the man’s whole life goes on in a fixed mechanical 
succession of events, which could be calculated before- 
hand by any one knowing the complex forces which act 


on it just as accurately as astronomers can calculate the 
18 


274 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill, 


complex path of a planet. The essence of the theory iS 
in fact just this: that the reign of law—of fixed invariable 
succession—which has been proved to hold in the world 
of matter extends also to the world of mind. Now, to 
discuss this great question fully would be impossible to- 
night. But to the theory I have described there is this 
one fatal objection—that it is clean against man’s con- 
sciousness, or rather I should perhaps say against my 
consciousness, since each man can speak only for him- 
self. But for myself (and I think that I must speak also 
for every one here present) I know that I am free, that I 
am not the slave of circumstances, that I may act 
according to a motive, but do not obey it any more than 
a king obeys the councillor whose advice he follows. 
When I move my hand near a flame, the consciousness 
of heat is no whit more clear or certain than the con- 
sciousness that such movement was my own free act 
alone, and not due to any power whatsoever ; and you 
are as likely to persuade me to disbelieve the one fact as 
the other. Further, what is still more to my purpose to 
remark is that this theory is utter destruction to all that 
we call morality. It asserts that the life of man is just 
as much the product of certain causes as the life of a 
plant ; that knowing all the conditions you could describe 
it beforehand just as exactly as you could describe the 
life of a plant if you knew the nature of the seed and all 
the conditions of soil, weather, and so forth under which 
it sprang up and grew. Then if so, how can man be 
more responsible for his actions than a plant is? He did 
not make his own nature nor the circumstances in which 
he lived; how did he in any sense make what that 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. — 275 


nature and those circumstances produced? How can we 
possibly honour this man for his truth and virtue, blame 
that man for his baseness and infamy? May we not just 
as well honour the rose for its sweetness, or blame the 
hemlock for its poison? This is so plain and obvious 
that even the opponents of free will find it very hard to 
shut their eyes to it. I appeal on this head to the 
witness of John Mill himself. The difficulty pressed 
hard upon him, and he got rid of it by an evasion as 
shallow and as flagrant as was ever used by the votary of 
superstition in the attempt to reconcile reason with 
faith. After telling us (p. 168) that he felt as if he was 
scientifically proved to be the helpless slave of antecedent 
circumstances—as if his character and that of all others 
had been formed for us by agencies beyond our own 
control, and was wholly out of our own power—he goes 
on to say, “I pondered painfully on the subject, till 
gradually I saw light through it. ... I saw that though 
our character is formed by Perici our own 
desires can do much to shape those circumstances ; and 
that what is really inspiriting and ennobling in the 
doctrine of free will is the conviction that we have 
real power over the formation of our own character : 
that our will, by influencing some of our circumstances, 
can modify our future habits or capabilities of willing.” 

Our desires can do much to shape our circumstances. 
But what have we to do with our desires? Do they not 
rise unbidden in our minds, just as the outward circum- 
stances rise unbidden around us? It is true that our 
actions, by which alone we can influence circumstances, 
do modify our future desires, and, produce habits. But 


276 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Ail. 


if each action from the first moment of our existence 
was the simple result of whatever desires and circum- 
stances existed at that moment, how are we responsible 
‘for such modification ? Unless at some point at least of 
the chain of events our own independent will has come 
in, that ‘‘ power over the formation of our own characters” 
of which Mr. Mill speaks is not a reality but a phan- 
tom. And it zs a phantom, because this independent 
action is exactly what Mr. Mill and his school deny, 
Therefore his escape from the difficulty is a mere paltry 
evasion. Therefore on the doctrine of free will, and of 
free will alone, has man any responsibility for his 
actions, or such words as right, duty, and morality any 
proper meaning whatever. 

I hold therefore as a certain truth this great axiom 
of the freedom of the will. And now I will show 
you how utterly it changes the face of the question 
as to the possibility of believing in religion. I have 
already sketched out for you the scheme of religion as 
it appeared to James Mill and to his son: I will now 
sketch it out again, as it appears to me. It is a fact 
accepted by all wise and true men, that happiness with- 
out virtue is poor and worthless : that virtue without 
happiness is noble, but too hard to bear ; lastly, that hap- 
piness with virtue is the one good thing which man 
idles, for which he is fitted, for which alone it is worth 
while to live, to dare and to suffer all things. But what 
do you mean by virtue? Not merely doing acts which 
are useful and beneficial to others? If so, a machine 
could be virtuous. If you think of what you mean by 
virtue it is this: to do good when you might do evil; to 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 27% 


walk steadfastly in the narrow road when the broad lies 
open before you. There is the clue to the mystery 
which has so puzzled men in all ages, the mystery of 
evil. Choose any virtue you please, and you will see that 
but for the presence of evil it could not exist. Where 
would be the merit of truthfulness, if it were impossible 
to lie? of courage if there were nothing to fear? 
Where would benevolence be, if all were happy? or 
trustfulness, if none were false? Even love itself, the 
crowning grace, the message of the Gospel, is not a virtue 
so long as it is a mere natural feeling for those who are 
near to us, and contribute to our happiness: it becomes 
such only when it extends to the unknown and the out- 
cast, and to our enemies themselves. Evil is necessary 
to the growth, nay to the very existence of virtue; to 
overcome evil with good is the grandest thing, is the one 
only grand thing, which the mind of man can conceive. 
And doubtless, grand though it be to us, it is far grander 
in the sight of God. God who made the world and all 
things therein would have the reasonable service of free 
men, rather than the blind obedience of slaves. There- 
fore he has created a world of mingled good and evil, 
pleasure and pain; therefore he has placed man in that 
world, having given him from the treasure of his own 
omnipotence the supreme gift of will ; and setting bgfore 
him good and evil, blessing and cursing, he leavesiim 
to choose between them. As his choice is so is he 
virtuous or vicious, happy or miserable. Herc comes in 
the explanation of moral evil, as distinct from physical. 
Once admit that man is free to choose, and you must 
admit the possibility of his choosing wrong. Once 


278 Lhe Autobiugraphy of Fohn Stuart Mill, 


admit this to be possible, and there can be no cause for 
surprise that it has actually happened, or that it has hap- 
pened any number of times. And whilst to those who 
choose and cleave to the good, there is an end ere long 
of trial and discipline, and virtue perfected receives its 
exceeding great reward : so those who wilfully give them- 
selves to evil, must sooner or later reap the just recom- 
pense of their deeds, as even by the working of natural 
law, guilt brings in general its own punishment. Sin 
when it hath conceived, bringeth forth death. 

Hitherto I have spoken in the language of natural 
religion only, and the Jew, the Deist, the Mahometan, 
may all go with me thus far. But we Christians claim 
for this doctrine of the majesty of suffering a witness 
such as no other creed knows of, no philosophy has con- 
ceived. ‘The God whom we worship has not given us 
precepts of virtue merely : he has also “ left us an example 
that we should follow in his steps.” ‘The fiery trial of 
adversity was in his eyes a thing so precious that even 
his own perfections he deemed imperfect until they had 
thus been tried. When man in his weakness chose evil 
rather than good, and fell ever deeper and deeper into 
the gulf of sin, then God not willing that any should 
perish found out a remedy by the sacrifice of himself. 
 aobee from his secure throne above into the 
forefront of the,battle, and dying gave to us in one act 
pardon for past failure, and strength for victories to come. 
Therefore is he not our Lord only, but also our pattern 
and our guide ; how often so ever we fall, yet in his 
name we may arise; he was tempted in all our tempta- 
tions, and in all our sorrows we are filling up the measure 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 279 


of the sufferings of Christ. What have other religions to 
offer in comparison with this? They may paint the un- 
approachable splendour of their deity, the immutability 
of his repose, and invest him with the poor attributes of 
wisdom and strength: but we know Jesus Christ and 
him crucified. Ours is a God who went about doing 
good ; who had not where to lay his head ; who was 
despised and rejected of men; who made himself in the 
form of a servant and became obedient unto death, even 
the death of the cross. Yours may be a God of power, 
but ours is a God of love: of love than which none is 
greater, in that he has laid down his life for our sakes. 
Such, as we learn it from nature and from the Bible, is 
the mystery of godliness: such are the purposes of God 
in the creation and government of this world. And now 
I ask you to tell me whether this is a scheme of things 
which a philosopher should view with horror and disgust : 
which he should regard (I am quoting from the Autobio- 
graphy) “with the feelings due not to a mere mental 
delusion, but to a great moral evil.” Is this a belief 
which is likely “radically to vitiate the standard of morals” ? 
Do you recognise in the Being I have tried to describe, 
“the most perfect conception of wickedness which the 
human mind can devise”? If not, was not the abhor- 
rence on which Mill dwells so forcibly directed not 
against the Deity whom we worship, but against a demon 
of his own imagining? But observe (and this brings 
me back to the direct line of my argument), that the 
truth and the beauty of such a system as I have tried to 
paint, depends entirely on our admitting that man’s will is 
free. Deny that and the picture changes at once and 


280 The Autobigraphy of Fohn Stuart Milt. 


returns to the hideous colours in which Mill has de- 
scribed it. The whole argument lies in the nutshell of 
this single unassailable truth: it is just and righteous 
that man should be rewarded for his good or punished 
for his bad actions, provided, and only provided, that he 
is free to act. 

If then this doctrine of freedom was denied both by 
James Mill and his son (of which there is ample proof), 
then their rejection of religion followed in strict logical 
sequence. In the case of James Mill there is evidence 
enough that this denial was influenced by the religious 
school in which he had been brought up. He was 
educated we are told for the ministry of the Scottish 
church, and doubtless therefore in the strict doctrine 
of Calvinism. Now without wishing to pronounce 
any judgment on that doctrine, there can be no doubt 
that if it does not deny free will, at any rate it so ob- 
scures and disfigures it as to make it almost invisible. 
James Mill therefore had only to accept that doctrine 
and push it to its rigorous consequences. Man, accord- 
ing to Calvin, is not free to rise; therefore, Mill would 
argue, he is not free to fall. The injustice of what he 
had been taught to regard as the only true scheme of 
religion would then appear clear to his logical mind ; 
and we can imagine how even his good qualities— 
courage, philanthropy, love of justice—helped his natural 
selfassertion and pugnacity to open revolt. With his 
son the work was easier, for the two reasons I have 
already given; first, that the training was begun and 
persevered in from earliest childhood; and secondly, 
that the same training, together with the tone of the 


The A utobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill, 281 


society in which he moved, so inculcated the superior 
wisdom of unbelief, that to a much more humble man it 
might have seemed a truth beyond all possibility of ques- 
tion. Therefore I claim to have proved that the rejection 
of Christianity by these two men, and more especially by 
the son, is no evidence at all against its truth except 
in so far asit is an evidence against the truth of free will. 

But I can do more than this: I can call these very 
men to give testimony on my side of the argument. For 
whilst rejecting with all possible emphasis the idea of 
freedom they yet, by an inconsistency of thought which 
they would have been the first to blame in others, re- 
tained a belief in morality—in those conceptions of right 
and duty which, as I have already shown, are absolutely 
meaningless, unless man is free. The doctrine I have 
insisted on, namely that the only thing worth living for is 
to uphold the right and strive against the wrong, had no 
firmer adherent than James Mill. Listen to the account 
which his son gives of his convictions on this head (p. 46). 
‘My father’s moral convictions, wholly dissevered from 
religion, were very much of the character of those of the 
Greek philosophers ; and were delivered with the force 
and decision which characterised all that came from him.” 
‘His moral inculcations were justice, temperance (to 
which he gave a very extended application), veracity, 
perseverance, readiness to encounter pain, and espe- 
cially labour ; regard for the public good, estimation of 
persons according to their merits, and of things accord- 
ing to their intrinsic usefulness; a life of exertion in 
contradiction. to one of self-indulgent ease and sloth. 
These and other moralities he conyeyed in brief sentences, 


282 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mil. 


uttered as occasion arose, of grave exhortation, or 
stern reprobation and contempt.” Reprobation and 
contempt! What can be more irrational than for Mr. 
Mill to cherish such feelings against persons who are 
only acting as he acted, that is in absolute harmony with 
the motives imposed on them by nature and circum- 
stances? We should all think it absurd to be angry 
with a lunatic, and on this theory sane men and 
lunatics stand on exactly the same footing so far as 
praise and blame are concerned. ‘They each of them 
act just as their nature makes them act; the nature of the 
one is rational and of the other not; but rationality and 
irrationality are not moral qualities, and have no praise 
or blame attaching tothem. In short man is a machine: 
and it is no more reasonable to blame him for commit- 
ting a crime, than to blame a steam engine for causing 
an accident. Therefore I say that these moral senti- 
ments and inculcations of James Mill are a proof that his 
scheme, however complete in theory, broke down in 
practice ; that in spite of himself he felt what all do feel 
—that human actions, according as they are good or 
evil, deserve praise or censure, reward or punishment. 
His theory ran altogether counter to those feelings, and 
the feelings got the better of it. There is a line of 
Horace which says forcibly that you may pitchfork 
Nature out of the cart, but she will always find her way 
back again ; and that I hold to have been the case with 
James Mill. But further, his language goes to prove 
that true philosophers, whatever may be their speculative 
opinions, do unite in that practical conviction which the 
strony sense of honest men has in all ages approved ; 


The Autobiography of Fokn Stuart Mul. — 283 


the conviction that the life to which all men should and 
can aspire, the only life worth living, is (to use Mill’s own 
words) a life of justice, temperance, veracity, perseve 
rance: a life of exertion in contradiction to one of self- 
indulgent ease and sloth. Like the Christian he paid 
honour to that man, and that man only, who walks the 
straight path of duty proof against flattery, fear, or pain ; 
and by so doing he bears unconscious witness to the 
truth of that great principle which I have been defending. 
For what is the true essence of this life of exertion, the 
inward principle to which honour is due? Why has 
England but lately leapt up to welcome those gallant 
‘men who have been fighting her battles in the deadly 
air of Africa? Why has she still more lately been earnest 
to offer all that remained to pay of honour to that great 
traveller who in a yet nobler spirit gave up everything, 
even to life itself, for the welfare of that same distant 
land? Why but because they did this when they might 
have done otherwise—because when they might have 
shrunk from the danger they pressed on to meet it; be- 
cause they preferred the life of labour and suffering to 
that of luxury and ease which lay equally within their 
reach ; because, in a word, they made a right and noble 
use of God’s sovereign gift of will. 

My task is well nigh over. I have tried to show you 
that no argument against the truth of Christianity can 
properly be drawn from the unbelief of James and John 
Mill. I have put before you the theory of life and being 
as it was held by them, and also the theory which under- 
lies the faith of the Christian. JI must leave you to 
choose between them. Only in choosing there is one 


284 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


point which I would ask you to weigh well and carefully, 
and that is, how far each theory suits itself to the great 
moral facts of our experience, and to those needs and 
yearnings and aspirations of which all enlightened souls 
are conscious. ‘This moral evidence has no small weight 
in a question which concerns exclusively the moral and 
not the physical side of man’s nature; and he is a fool 
who in making up his beliefs neglects to inquire how 
those beliefs square with his inmost needs, and how they 
will aid him through the troublesome voyage of life. 
Now the philosophy of the Secularists, as represented by 
James and John Mill, is utterly powerless as to any moral 
influence ; it has no nourishment to strengthen the weak, 
no medicine to heal the afflicted. It asserts that con- 
cerning the origin and end of things nothing is or can be 
known; whence we come and whither we are going is 
alike behind a veil; of the existence and nature of God 
we are wholly ignorant, except that he cannot be, as 
Theists hold, infinite both in power and goodness. 
Placed as we are in this life we have only to do the best 
we can for our own happiness; and that is to be found 
in promoting the happiness of the world at large, in 
abjuring pleasure and excitement, and leading a life of 
philanthropic exertion. Now this view of life may suit 
men who have the cold unimpassioned temperament 
characteristic of sceptical philosophers. ‘Thus of James 
Mill we read (p. 48): ‘‘ He had scarcely any belief in 
pleasure, at least in his late years. He was not insensible 
to pleasures, but he deemed very few of them worth the 
price which, at least in the present state of society, must 
be paid for them. He never varied in rating intellectual 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 285 


enjoyments above all others even in value as pleasures, 
independently of their ulterior benefits. The pleasures 
of the benevolent affections he placed high in the scale. 
For passionate emotions of all:sorts he professed the 
greatest contempt. He regarded them as a form of 
madness. The intense was with him a by-word of 
scornful disapprohation.” Now we can imagine a man 
of this character being well contented with a life of self- 
denying labour and philanthropy. Buta voluptuary may 
answer him: “I have no objection to your idea of life, 
so long as you carry it out yourself; but unfortunately it 
does not suit me. You may have no belief in pleasure, 
but I have a great deal. The satisfaction you find in 
working for your fellow men, I find in gratifying my 
senses ; and so long as I do not interfere with others I 
claim the right to follow my own instincts as you do 
yours. You may perhaps urge that indulgence in plea- 
sure will bring its own punishment ; but I reply that this 
is by no means a certain and universal consequence— 
that what is certain is the immediate gratification : 
lastly, that if enjoyment should one day cease and life 
become a burden, there is still an unfailing resource—one 
can always die.” To such an argument I do not see 
how this philosophy can possibly make any answer 
whatever. It fails therefore in finding means to enforce 
those rules of morality which it professes to uphold. But 
if it can offer no defence against vice, still less has it any 
supporting force against the pressure of care. A man 
may perhaps live well enough on such a creed while the 
world smiles on him and all things are prosperous. But — 
let adversity come, as sooner or later it comes to all, 


286 The A utobtography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 


and I know nothing more dreary, more utterly blank and 
hopeless than his view of life must be. For remember 
that this creed takes away all that to us Christians makes 
life bearable at its worst—the promises of Scripture and 
the hope full of immortality, the glory of patience, and 
- the inseparable love of Christ—it takes away all these and 
it gives nothing whatever in their stead. All that it can 
tell of or point to is earthly happiness, and now earthly 
happiness is gone. Iam here drawing no fancied picture. 
I need go no further for my authority than the book 
before us. Remember that these two men, James and 
John Mill, lived on the whole singularly prosperous and 
useful lives ; they reached the highest eminence in the 
paths they had chosen, and might boast of having done 
much to advance the cause of humanity. Yet of the 
father we read as follows (p. 48): ‘He thought human 
life a poor thing at the best, after the freshness of youth 
and of unsatisfied curiosity had gone by. This was a 
topic on which he did not often speak, especially it may 
be supposed in the presence of young persons ; but when 
he did it was with an air of settled and profound convic- 
tion. He would sometimes say that if life were made what 
it might be by good government and good education 
it would be worth having; but he never spoke with 
anything like enthusiasm even of that possibility.” 
And the son, with his loftier mind and keener sensi- 
bilities, found even less refuge in the tenets of his 
philosophy against the storms of life. In that moral 
crisis of early manhood, of which he has left the record, 
we find his mind turning to suicide as its natural re- 
source. “I frequently asked myself (p. 140) if I could, 


The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 287 


or if I was bound to go on living, if life was to be passed 
in this manner. I generally answered to myself that I 
did not think I could possibly bear it beyond a year.” 
And in later days how sad and hopeless 1s his clinging to 
the image of her whose mind he had made his standard 
of intellect, and whose character he had worshipped with 
a devotion that was almost akin to idolatry. ‘“ Her 
memory is to me a religion, and her approbation the 
standard by which—summing up as it does all wor- 
thiness—I endeavour to regulate my life.” ‘‘ Because I 
know she would have wished it, I endeavour to make 
the best of what life I have left, and to work on for her 
purposes with such diminished strength as can be derived 
from thoughts of her, and communion with her memory.” 
To me, thinking overthis the last utterance of scepticism’s 
last apostle, there seems to come the voice of another 
teacher, speaking in words no less sweet because so 
familiar: ‘‘Come unto me, all ye, that travail and are 
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke 
upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of 
heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” So to the 
weary and oppressed of that distant place and day spoke 
the man Jesus of Nazareth; so across the centuries he 
speaks to the heavy-hearted now, and they believe him. 


een Le 

¢ aes 
UE 
ye « t i 
ea. 

Py tae 


uu 
: | 


4 
- 
ay 
Lad * “ ] 
e, >: 


Neve 
“ea ae. 


T 


03 


| 


il 


mult 


| 


mi 


| 


= 
i 
c 
o 
$3 
@ 
.=) 
c 
= 
a 


et eee 


Pati ek, Pre: ry = eae 
ES GR See apes ey 


PPT Se Pe ned 
eles hate > 


wee ae : : 
ee ee he Setocsee 


